FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1) Dismissal of member (2) Flexibility (3) Pay (4) Grievance Procedure
(5) Implementation Of LCR12398 (6) Canteen Staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Dismissal of member
The dispute before the Court concerns a number of issues as outlined above. However, the key issue was the dismissal of a worker for refusing to carry-out certain clerical duties as instructed by management. The dismissal of the worker precipitated industrial action being taken by the Union following a ballot of its members. The strike commenced on the 25th May, 1997.
The worker concerned was employed on a one year contract. The Society claims that there was a flexibility clause in the worker's contract which required her to undertake other work, such as acting as secretary to the "Younger Members' Committee" when required. It claims that her predecessor carried out this work.
The Union claims that the secretaryship was not a specific duty referred to in the worker's contract. It claims that her predecessor carried out the secretaryship on a voluntary basis.
2. Flexibility
The Union is seeking the removal of the phrase "completely flexible" from the working procedure clause of the contract of employment and also certain assurances regarding the secretaryship of Committees.
The Society states that it is prepared to replace the words "completely flexible" in contracts of employment with the words "reasonably flexible, appropriate to the type of work for which you are engaged". It also claims that in future, it will only assign non-executive staff to act as secretary to the Younger Members' Committee.
3. Pay
The Union is seeking full implementation of a pay scale for clerical grades agreed in the 1970s between both sides. The pay increases which the scale attracted were those negotiated through the various National Wage Agreements. The Society subsequently introduced a new pay scale for all new clerical staff without Union agreement.
The Society claims that for cost reasons it wanted agreement on a new scale, but as no agreement was reached, it put in place the second scale.
At conciliation the Society agreed to re-introduce the old pay scale effective from the 1st June, 1997.
4. Grievance Procedures
The Union wants to put in place a grievance procedure to deal with any future complaints/grievances which may arise. The Society is amenable, in principle, to such procedures.
5. Implementation of LCR12398
This recommendation was issued in 1988. The Court recommended that 2.5% be paid in return for acceptance of a number of productivity measures including agreement on flexibility.
The flexibility provisions were never implemented and as a result the increase was never paid. The Union claims that the recommendation should be implemented in full. The Society states that this issue has only be raised recently and claims that it is inappropriate to raise this issue now after a lapse of 8 years.
6. Canteen Staff
The Union is seeking the introduction of improved rates of pay, including bonuses, and holiday entitlements for canteen staff. The Society claims that no local discussions have taken place on this issue. However, it is prepared to agree to the introduction of 20 days annual leave for all canteen staff. In addition, it is prepared to enter into discussions on the other outstanding issues in relation to this claim within an agreed timeframe. The Union was agreeable to this on the basis that the bonus issue would be addressed immediately.
7. As no overall agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. Concilation conferences were held on the 26th May,1997 and the 29th May,1997 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th June, 1997.
DISMISSAL OF A WORKER
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dismissal of the worker and the manner in which it was carried out was "the last straw" as far as the Union was concerned.
2. The worker concerned had received an excellent performance assessment from senior management .
3. The secretaryship was not a specific duty referred to in the worker's contract of employment, nor was there any reference to it at her interview.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Society requested that the worker serve as secretary to the Younger Members' Committee as her predecessor had done.
2. It was part of the worker's contract of employment to carry-out these duties as instructed.
3. The worker should have carried out her duties as instructed "under protest" until the dispute had been resolved at local level.
FLEXIBILITY
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union wants the removal of the words "completely flexible" from all contracts of employment.
2. The Union also requires certain assurances from management regarding the secretaryship of Committees.
3. In 1989, the Union referred the issue of "flexibility" to the Labour Court for investigation. The Court recommended that the employer should define the extent of flexibility required of staff and that the flexibility so defined be accepted by the staff.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Society is agreeable to replace the wording "completely flexible" with "reasonably flexible, appropriate to the type of work being performed".
2. The Society is also prepared not to assign secretaryship of Committees to non-executive staff in the future.
3. The capacity to respond to change quickly and effectively is very important. Accordingly, flexibility of staff is vital in any modern organisation.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. There is no agreed grievance procedure in place at present. The Union wants this rectified immediately.
2. The staff are nervous and apprehensive because no procedures are currently in place for dealing with employees' complaints.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Society is in broad agreement that a grievance procedure to deal with complaints should be in place.
2. The Society issued a draft of a grievance procedure to the Union during conciliation talks in May 1997 subject to further discussions and agreement.
3. The Society claims that, if a reasonable approach is adopted by all sides, there should be no difficulty in arriving at an agreed grievance procedure.
IMPLEMENTATION OF LCR12398
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Union is seeking the full implementation of LCR12398.
2. The Union is not seeking payment of back money as a result of the recommendation but wants the definition of "flexibility" addressed by the Society.
3. There should be a sum awarded to staff in respect of productivity as a result of the above recommendation.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The issue of LCR12398 was only raised in the past few months. The Society made efforts to meet the Union to discuss the matter but without success.
2. The Society argues that it is inappropriate of the Union to now raise the matter of LCR12398 which was issued approximately eight years ago.
CANTEEN STAFF
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The Union wants improved rates of pay, including bonuses, and holiday entitlements for canteen staff.
2. The rates of pay being sought by the Union, are normal canteen rates which apply in unionised employments throughout Dublin.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. The issue of the canteen staff was raised for the first time by the Union in its letter of strike notice.
2. The Society is prepared to increase annual leave for all canteen staff.
3. The Society is prepared to pay the Dublin Joint Labour Committee rates for canteen staff when these are established.
PAY
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
13. 1. The Society is in breach of an agreement concluded in the 1970's in relation to agreed pay scales for all clerical staff.
2. The Society has put in place another pay scale for new staff at lower rates of pay without Union agreement.
3. The Union wants all clerical staff to be placed on the agreed scale.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1. The Society tried to negotiate a new pay scale with the Union without success.
2. The Society is prepared to apply the agreed scales to all staff recruited to clerical positions from the 1st June 1997. Those on the new scale would transfer to the nearest point above current salary levels on this scale.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court whilst a strike was taking place. The Court once more wishes to record its disapproval of being placed in such a situation and urges that for the future the normal dispute resolving procedures are followed.
There are 5 items in dispute between the parties and the Court recommends as follows on each item:
1.Dismissal of a worker:- This event was the spark which started the industrial action. The Court notes that in the course of the hearing the worker who was dismissed gave a full apology to the Director General and accepted totally his authority. For his part he accepted the apology. The action of both parties in giving and accepting the apology removed much of the bad feeling between the parties. Having considered the submissions and arguments, and taking into account the above, the Court recommends that the period from date of dismissal to acceptance of this recommendation be treated as suspension; the worker be
then re-instated on condition she agrees to service the Young Members' Committee until the end of September 1997 when she wishes to pursue a study course.
2.Implementation of L.C.R. No 12398:- This recommendation was issued in 1988 and has a chequered history. There are two items outstanding - flexibility and payment of 2.5% productivity. Considerable progress in agreeing a definition of flexibility was made at Conciliation.
The Court recommends that, in the context of the Union accepting management’s right to manage which carries with it responsibility, the following definition be accepted:
"It is understood by you that you will be reasonably flexible appropriate to the type of work for which you are engaged."
In the event of a conflict, the worker should carry out the Supervisor’s instructions, under protest if necessary, and refer the conflict immediately into the Grievance Procedures referred to below. The Court further urges the Society and its managerial staff to be sensitive in the operation of flexible arrangements.
With regard to the claim for 2.5% productivity which featured in LCR12398, the Court considers that the passage of time and the changes which have taken place make it impossible for the Court to recommend on this. However, the Court does consider and recommend, when the new flexible arrangements are accepted and working, that this item should be revisited by the parties.
3.Grievance Procedures:- The adoption of agreed procedure for dealing with grievances is imperative. Indeed, the Court is of the view that had they been in place this unfortunate dispute could have been avoided. There is an acceptance on both sides of this need. The Court recommends that a scheme modelled perhaps on the Code of Practice be agreed within 1 month of the date of this recommendation.
4.Canteen Workers:- In the interest of not prolonging the strike, and noting the acceptance of the parties to implement the average union Dublin rate for such workers, the Court recommends that the parties meet and agree these rates. Agreement should be reached within 6 weeks of the date of this recommendation. Failing agreement, the parties can refer the matter back directly to the Court for detailed recommendation.
5.Pay Scales:- Again, the Court notes the Society’s agreement to apply the agreed scales to all staff recruited to clerical positions on the basis of entry at the most appropriate point of the scale above their current salary level from week-ending 1st June, 1997.
The Court recommends acceptance of the above terms as a fair resolution to the current dispute. As stated at the hearing, the Court would expect that both sides would finalise their response to the recommendation as a matter of urgency in order to expedite a return to work.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
16th June, 1997______________________
L.W./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.