Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91598 Case Number: LCR13514 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: UNION CAMP IRELAND - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of Clause 21 of the Company/Union Agreement.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered Clause 21 in its entirety in order to
assist the parties in the interpretation requested.
The part of the Clause in dispute "if the issue remains
unresolved, both parties agree to use the services of a Rights
Commissioners or the Labour Court Conciliation Service and
thereafter to refer the matter to the Labour Court".
Later on in Clause 21.5 it states "No official action will be
taken by either side until the above procedure has been
exhausted'..."
In these circumstances, and taking into account the time the
agreement was made the Court interprets the relevant Clause
regarding a Rights Commissioner referral as including an appeal
to the Labour Court by either party in order to exhaust the
procedures.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91598 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13514
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: UNION CAMP IRELAND
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of Clause 21 of the
Company/Union Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1981. It is involved in
the manufacture of corrugated boxes and employs 145 full
time employees. A Company/Union Agreement on procedures
has existed since the Company was established. Clause 21
(Appendix 1) of the agreement covers the grievance
procedures. Within sub-paragraph 5 of this clause is
stated:
"If the issue remains unresolved, both parties agree to use
the services of a Rights Commissioner or the Labour Court
Conciliation Service and thereafter to refer the matter to
the Labour Court. Such cases as are referred to a Rights
Commissioner or Labour Court will entail individual Union
representation on the behalf of the aggrieved Union member,
i.e. the I.T.G.W.U. will represent the General Factory
Workers, the E.T.U. the electricians and the A.U.E.W. the
mechanicals fitters."
2. 2. The dispute in question arose in July, 1991 when a
matter which failed to be resolved at local level was
referred by the Company to a Rights Commissioner for
recommendation. The Union rejected the recommendation but
was informed by the Company that it was obliged, under
Clause 21 of the Company/Union Agreement, to appeal the
recommendation to the Labour Court. The Union claims that
any obligation under sub-paragraph 5 to go to the Labour
Court applies only to issues which have first been referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Relations
Commission.
2. 3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under
Section 20(2) of the industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court investigated the dispute on 2nd December, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Within Clause 21.5 it is also stated that "no official
action will be taken by either side until the above
procedure has been exhausted...". As an appeal to the
Labour Court against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
is binding, the Union would be prevented from taking any
form of official industrial action, thus denying its members
the right to ballot on important issues.
3. 2. The Rights Commissioners Service has been used as an
alternative to the Labour Court in straight forward cases
where the right to appeal is a useful option but not
obligatory. If the question of appeal to the Labour Court
is obligatory the Union would find itself in a position
whereby it would refuse to attend a Rights Commissioners
hearing or it would have to ballot it's members before
referring a dispute to the Rights Commissioner. This would
result in a totally impractical situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 21, sub-section 5 of the Grievance Procedures
within the Company/Union Agreement clearly states that a
party to a Rights Commissioner hearing is obliged to appeal
the recommendation to the Labour Court if the original issue
has not been resolved.
4. 2. The Union in it's interpretation of the Agreement is
being selective. It is choosing not to appeal
recommendations which are unfavourable thus ensuring that
only recommendations favourable to the Union are resolved.
This interpretation is totally unacceptable to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered Clause 21 in its entirety in order to
assist the parties in the interpretation requested.
The part of the Clause in dispute "if the issue remains
unresolved, both parties agree to use the services of a Rights
Commissioners or the Labour Court Conciliation Service and
thereafter to refer the matter to the Labour Court".
Later on in Clause 21.5 it states "No official action will be
taken by either side until the above procedure has been
exhausted'..."
In these circumstances, and taking into account the time the
agreement was made the Court interprets the relevant Clause
regarding a Rights Commissioner referral as including an appeal
to the Labour Court by either party in order to exhaust the
procedures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
19th December, 1991 _________________
A.N.S./N.M. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX I
CLAUSE 21: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
This Agreement contains a Negotiation and Grievance
Procedure for the settlement of all grievances and disputes which
may arise, thus eliminating the cause for any ultimatum ever
being given by the Union or Union Members or Management.
1. The grievance should be discussed between the employee or
employees and their immediate Supervisor provided it is
done within two working days after the alleged grievance
has arisen. If a settlement is not reached then either
party may refer the matter to the next stage provided
they do so within two working days of an answer being
given at stage 1.
2. The employee(s), accompanied by his/her Shop Steward (if
the employee so desires) refers the matter to the
Manufacturing Manager. The Shop Steward must receive
permission before he leaves his place of work. If a
settlement is not reached, then either party may refer
the matter to the next stage, provided they do so within
two working days of an answer being given at stage 2.
3. The matter is now referred to the Personnel Manager who
will convene a meeting with the Shop Steward and the
Management concerned. If a settlement is not reached
then either party may refer the matter to the next stage,
provided they do so within two working days on an answer
being given at stage 3.
4. The matter is again referred to the Personnel Manager,
who will convene a meeting with the local Union Official,
Shop Steward and Management concerned.
5. If the issue remains unresolved, both parties agree to
use the services of a Rights Commissioner or the Labour
Court Conciliation Service and thereafter to refer the
matter to the Labour Court.
Such cases as are referred to a Rights Commissioner or
Labour Court will entail individual Union representation
on the behalf of the aggrieved Union member, i.e. the
I.T.G.W.U. will represent the General Factory Workers,,
the E.T.U. the electricians and the A.U.E.W. the
mechanical fitters.
Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 should be completed as quickly as
possible but within five (5) working days per stage,
excluding weekends or Public Holidays. Stage 5 will be
dependent on the availability of outside parties.
No official action will be taken by either side until the
above procedure has been exhausted, and then only after
the expiry of the mandatory notice as per National
Understandings or fourteen days whichever is the greater,
in writing, by the Union of such industrial action.
In the event of a dispute between the Company and its
employees the parties agree that the Security personnel
will remain on duty and provide the necessary cover for
the duration of the dispute in order to protect the
Company property.