Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87309 Case Number: LCR11301 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL - and - AEU;ETU |
Claim, by all parties, for the interpretation of the grievance and disputes procedure section of the Company/Union Agreement.
Recommendation:
6. The Court considers that the word 'may' in the first paragraph
of Section 19(e) can only reasonably be interpreted as relating to
the alternative of "Rights Commissioner" or "Labour Court".
However, the Court regards the subsequent paragraph as imposing an
obligation on both sides to use either the Rights Commissioner or
the Labour Court (as appropriate) before embarking on any
industrial action.
The Court so interprets Section 19(e).
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87309 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11301
CC87122 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11301
PARTIES: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADES' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by all parties, for the interpretation of the grievance
and disputes procedure section of the Company/Union Agreement.
Background:
2. During the course of negotiations on the 26th Wage Round a
dispute arose with regard to procedures. The Amalgamated
Engineering Union threatened and the Electrical Trades' Union
issued strike notice following their members rejection of a
Company pay offer made at a conciliation conference. The Company
regarded this as a breach of Section 19(e) of the Company/Union
Agreement. On 9th January, 1987, after the withdrawal of strike
notice, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court.
3. At a conciliation conference held on 17th February, 1987, the
Unions contended that Section 19(e) of the Agreement did not
oblige them to refer to the Labour Court any dispute which
remained unresolved following conciliation. The section in
question states:
19(e) If the issue is still not resolved, it may, depending on
its nature, be referred to either a Rights Commissioner or
the Labour Court.
It is agreed that no strike, lock-out or other form of
industrial action shall be taken by either party until two
weeks after the issue of the recommendation by the Labour
Court or Rights Commissioner and until 10 day's notice in
writing by one party to the other of their intention to
take such action.
The Company insisted that the section clearly implies the
exhaustion of all procedures up to and including the issuing of a
recommendation by either the Labour Court or a Rights
Commissioner. As there was no settlement at conciliation the
parties and the Federated Union of Employers in line with Section
21 of the Agreement (see Appendix), had further discussions, again
without a resolution of the matter. On 9th April, 1987, the
parties referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Navan on 23rd
June, 1987, - the earliest date suitable to all parties.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The word 'may' as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is
expressing possibility, permission, a request or a
wish. Therefore Section 19(e) is simply the procedure
to be adopted if the Unions decide on third party
intervention.
(b) This is not a new type of section. Other
company/union agreements have this section. The
Registered Employment Agreement for the electrical
industry has a similar section and it implies no
compunction to go to a Rights Commissioner or the
Labour Court. It would not have been the Unions'
intention to sign any agreement which would force them
to use a third party.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) The language of section 19(e) clearly points to the
referral of any issue unresolved at conciliation level
to either a Rights Commissioner or to the Labour
Court, the avenue of referral being dependant on the
nature of the matter unresolved at conciliation level.
It does not imply that there is a choice between
referral or non-referral.
(ii) Both the Company and the Unions consented to section
19(e), which forms an integral part of the grievance
and disputes procedure which is itself central to the
whole agreement.
(iii) The inclusion of the second paragraph in section 19(e)
clearly assumes that either party will have referred
any outstanding matter to either a Rights Commissioner
or the Labour Court before the issuing of notice of
industrial action.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court considers that the word 'may' in the first paragraph
of Section 19(e) can only reasonably be interpreted as relating to
the alternative of "Rights Commissioner" or "Labour Court".
However, the Court regards the subsequent paragraph as imposing an
obligation on both sides to use either the Rights Commissioner or
the Labour Court (as appropriate) before embarking on any
industrial action.
The Court so interprets Section 19(e).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th July, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX
21. DISPUTES ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS AGREEMENT
Both parties agree that all local level discussions to find
agreement must firstly take place before referring the matter
to a senior member of the Union to act on behalf of the
membership and a member of the Federated Union of Employers
to assist in resolving any form of dispute concerning the
interpretation of this Agreement.