Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8798 Case Number: LCR11107 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BOYLANS, DUN LAOGHAIRE - and - IDATU |
Claim on behalf of two shop assistants that pressure is being put on them by management with a view to their being forced to leave their jobs.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has noted the very poor industrial relations'
climate in the shop and both sides will have to make efforts to
improve the situation in a spirit of co-operation. The Court
recommends that, as a gesture of good - will, management should
withdraw the final warning notice from the claimant for a period
of one month's working from the date of this recommendation.
Providing her work performance is satisfactory, the notice would
then be withdrawn totally.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8798 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11107
CC8720 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11107
Parties: BOYLANS LIMITED (DUN LAOGHAIRE)
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of two shop assistants that pressure is being
put on them by management with a view to their being forced to
leave their jobs.
Background:
2. The Company operates a number of shops throughout the Dublin
area. The two workers concerned are employed at the Company's Dun
Laoghaire Shop.
3. In July, 1984, a number of the employees in the Dun Laoghaire
Shop joined the Union, including the manager and the workers
concerned. Subsequently, the manager in Dun Laoghaire left the
Company and the present manager was appointed to that shop. The
Union says that since his appointment to the store this manager,
with the support of the Company's directors and general manager,
has been aggressive towards the unionised staff and has favoured
the non-union employees, all arising out of a general anti-union
attitude by the Company. The Union adds that the manager is
endeavouring to make life particularly difficult for the two
workers concerned to the extent that it would be easier for them
to leave their jobs. In this respect, the Union refers to a
particular incident whereby one of these workers was instructed to
remain in the stock room all day, which is contrary to the norm,
despite a medical certificate stating that she should not be
involved in excessive lifting or pulling.
4. The Company denies that it has an anti-union attitude or that
pressure has been brought on the workers concerned to leave their
jobs and says that severe friction has arisen between the manager
and unionised staff in the shop due to the attitude these workers
have adopted whereby they expect to be treated differently to
other staff due to their seniority, age and service. Arising from
this, the Company says, it was necessary to issue one of the
workers concerned with a final written warning, which is the
second one to be issued to her.
5. As the parties failed to resolve their differences at local
level the dispute was referred, on 2nd January, 1987, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. Negotiations at a
conciliation conference, held on 5th February, 1987, centred
around a possible agreement between the parties of establishing
and maintaining good industrial relations in the store for the
future. In this regard, the Company sought a written commitment
from the workers that they would carry out their duties as
requested by the manager and a written commitment from the Union
that it would, in future, comply with all agreed procedures. In
return the Union sought a written commitment from the Company that
the past would be put aside and that all written and verbal
warnings against one of the workers concerned would be withdrawn;
that all staff, whether union on or non-union, would be treated
equally; and that in the absence of the personnel manager,
someone in the Company would be available at all reasonable times
to deal with the Union. The Company was not prepared to withdraw
the final warning issued in respect of one of the workers
concerned but as a compromise offered to withdraw it in three
months' time if her conduct proved satisfactory during that
period. This was unacceptable to the Union and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 24th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) Since his appointment to the Company's store in Dun
Laoghaire the manager has shown himself to be biased
towards unionised staff and has treated them in a less
favourable way than other staff (details supplied to
the Court). He has brought such pressure to bear on
the two workers concerned that it would appear they are
being forced to leave the shop. This attitude has been
maintained despite an agreement between the parties at
conciliation that unionised staff would be treated in a
fair and equal way.
(ii) The Union considers the Company to be anti-Union and
that the manager has the backing of the directors and
general manager of the Company in his actions against
unionised staff. This attitude obtains despite a
Recommendation by the Labour Court in 1985 that the
Company should recognise the Union.
(iii) Customers have complained on many occasions about the
manager's aggressive behaviour and the Company has been
obliged in the past to reprimand him for his actions.
(iv) In the circumstances, the Union is seeking that:
(a) the Company stop pressurising and discriminating
against the two workers concerned,
(b) the Company set aside all written and verbal
warnings against one of the workers,
(c) the Company instruct the manager to treat all staff
fairly and equally and in doing so take into
consideration any short term disability an employee
may have,
(d) the Company respect the wishes of its employees to
be members of the Union.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company has no problem in dealing with the Union
and this is evidenced by its relationship with Union
staff in other shops. With regard to the Dun Laoghaire
shop there is no problem between non-union staff and
management. However, the workers concerned seem to
find it difficult to cope with the extra demands placed
upon them by the new manager, in his effort to maintain
the significant improvement in business which he has
achieved in the stores. The workers are using the
Union to damage the manager's reputation and are
carrying out restrictive practices which are causing
friction between themselves and the manager. This is
unacceptable to the Company.
(b) The Union itself is adding to the problems which exist
in the store by failing to follow agreed procedures,
which provide that they should contact the Company's
head office representative before making contact with
the shop directly.
(c) The Company has at all times tried to improve existing
relationships between itself and the Union in relation
to this particular shop. In this regard, the Union is
attempting to protect its members' interests and the
problem exists at the shop and not between the Company
and the Union.
(d) In the past, the Company has taken the manager to task
about the way he handles people and this has arisen
directly as a result of complaints which have been
received through the Union. This shows the Company's
commitment to try and ensure that its management always
operate at an acceptable standard. Regrettably, it has
no evidence that the Union has ever taken its members
to task about how they should conduct themselves when
instructed to carry out duties by a manager.
(e) The Union would have shown its willingness and good
faith in attempts to try and restore normal
relationships by accepting the Company's offer of a
three month period before withdrawing the final written
warning in respect of one of the workers concerned.
Regrettably, it was not willing to do this, despite the
fact that this was the second such warning which had
been issued to this worker. The first had been
withdrawn at the request of the Union on the basis that
she would improve her attitude.
(f) The only way the problem at this shop can be resolved
is by management and staff accepting that close
co-operation on both sides is needed. This can be
achieved by the Union accepting the proposals which
emanated from the conciliation conference and agreeing
that the worker who has had a final warning issued
against her should work a problem-free three months at
the end of which time the Company would withdraw this
warning.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has noted the very poor industrial relations'
climate in the shop and both sides will have to make efforts to
improve the situation in a spirit of co-operation. The Court
recommends that, as a gesture of good - will, management should
withdraw the final warning notice from the claimant for a period
of one month's working from the date of this recommendation.
Providing her work performance is satisfactory, the notice would
then be withdrawn totally.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
____________________________
Deputy Chairman
16th April, 1987
T.McC./J.C.