FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WYETH NUTRITIONALS IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning final warnings issued to shop stewards.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following operational changes implemented by the Company on production lines, as a result of export requirements, an unofficial and unauthorised meeting of the workforce was held on the 22nd of August, 1996. This lead to a 2.5 hour unofficial stoppage resulting in a loss of production. Consequently the Company issued final written warnings to the seven shop stewards because it maintained the Union was in breach of procedures. The Union claimed that the workers were unfairly treated. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 11th of October, 1996. A proposal emerged in December, 1996 which was formulated by the Industrial Relations Officer which had at its core termination of the warnings from date of acceptance of the proposal and that the warnings would be removed from individual's files. The proposal was clarified on March, 1997. The Company required the additional provision that if the circumstances arose again (i.e. unofficial action) then the Company should refer back to the warnings. The Union rejected this provision. Further agreement was not possible. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 20th of August, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd of September, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workforce strongly objected to production schedules being changed because of the prospect of a loss of overtime earnings. The Shop Stewards Committee sought permission from management to convene a general meeting to clarify the Company's position to the workforce As this was not forthcoming the Committee called a general meeting. This was the only option to avoid an industrial dispute.
2. Seven out of ten shop stewards should not have been singled out and punished more severely than all other workers. The Company should have recognised the impossible position the Committee was placed in. The Company could have been more co-operative in assisting the Committee to resolve workers' grievances.
3. The Company's failure to accept the Industrial Relations Officer's proposals, without qualification, over the past 9 months, has delayed and frustrated the joint agreement to the involvement of the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission, to assist the parties in addressing problems associated with the handling of change and other issues on the employment.
4. The matter of the warnings was adequately addressed on two occasions by the Industrial Relations Officer in his proposals of the 13th of December, 1996, which were further clarified on the 20th of March, 1997 as a basis for settlement of this issue. These are acceptable to the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The general meeting called by the shop stewards who received these warnings was unauthorised and unofficial. The Company's response to a market problem was reasonable in all the circumstances. The response was not going to cause loss of earnings and was being processed through normal procedures in an expeditious manner. Therefore, the meeting was unwarranted.
2. The Union undertook in 1994 that unofficial action would not occur in the future. The Company had therefore no option in 1996 but to issue, as a minimum, final warnings to those that called the general meeting.
3. The reconvened conciliation conference on the 13th of December, 1996 laid the basis for addressing the underlying issues which led to the warnings and the proposal put by the Industrial Relations Officer was accepted in principle by both sides. While formally accepted three days later by the Company, it took the Union up to six months to finally declare its position on it, though both parties had recognised the importance of addressing the issues, tabled by the Company, at an early date and had accepted the three-month deadline to the 31st March, 1997 as set out by the Industrial Relations Officer in his proposal.
4. The Company accepted, as part of the proposal, to terminate the warnings issued to the seven shop stewards from the date of acceptance of the proposal. In subsequent correspondence it clarified that this meant that the warnings would be removed from their files, would cease to have status and would not again be referred to except in a repeat of the circumstances which cause them in the first place. This was a perfectly reasonable position to adopt and did not in any way amount to the Company's rejection of the proposal as claimed by the Union.
5. The Union's position amounted to one where it sought to have the warnings declared void from day one in justification of some shop stewards' position that they had a right to call the general meeting and that, conversely, the Company had no right to issue the warnings.
6. Clearly the warnings had been issued and the Company's position was that, while not retaining any disciplinary effect, it reserved its right to refer to such warnings having been issued if, and only if, at a future time similar circumstances recurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
It is the view of the Court that if Companies are to be successful and employment protected and expanded it is necessary for all concerned to abide by procedures and to co-operate with one another in a spirit of goodwill.
In this particular case, the Court considers the proposals of 13th December, 1996 of the Industrial Relations Officer should be accepted and the warnings allowed to elapse in their entirety.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
10th October, 1997______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.