FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : AGTEC IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) (IBEC) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Union application under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, whose business is importing and distributing telecommunication and ducting equipment was established in 1990. It is a family owned business and employs fourteen people.
The Union was approached by a number of employees for the purpose of representing them on the following issues, (a) Pay increases due under the National Pay Agreements, The Union states that it's members have made a major contribution to the Company's success, but have not been properly rewarded under the terms of the National Agreements. (b) Introduction of a Company pension scheme, The Union states that it's members wished to enter into discussions with the Company in relation to introducing a scheme, the Company is a profitable entity and has been able to meet all liabilities due under the terms of Sustaining Progress, and there is no evidence to show they are unable to fund a pension scheme. The Company declined an invitation to meet,as they do not recognise the Union.
The Company argues that (a) the claim under Programme for Prosperity and Fairness was not submitted by the Union until the Company had implemented the first phase of Sustaining Progress, as a result, the Company is of the belief that the claim is out of time and therefore invalid and illegitimate. (b) The claim regarding the Pension Scheme is cost increasing and would have major implications for the Company, in a time of downturn in the industry.
The Company also states that it has been practice for them to communicate directly with staff on all aspects of their conditions of employment. The Company enjoys a positive relationship with it's workforce and is not agreeable to collective negotiating with the Union.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2001. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th November 2003.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 (the Act). The Court is satisfied that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the Act are fulfilled in this case and that the dispute is properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
Section 5(2) of the Act provides that a recommendation made by the Court shall not provide for arrangements for collective bargaining. Subject only to that restriction the Court is required to give its opinion on the matter under investigation and, where appropriate, its view as to the action which should be taken having regard to the terms and conditions of employment, and to the dispute resolution and disciplinary procedures, in the employment concerned.
The issues raised by the Union in its referral relate to the application of the pay increases associated with the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) and Sustaining Progress (SP). They have claimed that the Company should negotiate with them on the introduction of a pension scheme.
The employees associated with this claim were newly organised by SIPTU in early 2003. The Company joined IBEC around the same time. Having received a claim from the Union in July 2003, the Company applied the first phase of SP from the due date. Heretofore, the Company did not adjust pay by reference to national partnership agreements but did so on an individual basis.
In the Court's view the most appropriate approach to the Union's pay claim is to establish if the rates of pay are out of line with established standards in comparable employments. No information has been furnished to the Court on which a conclusion in that regard could be drawn one way or the other.
In its second claim the Union asked the Court to recommend that the Company negotiate with it on the introduction of a pension scheme. Beyond that no specific claim was made. To recommend that the Company enter into negotiations with the Union on this matter would amount to a recommendation providing for arrangements for collective bargaining. The Court is precluded from making such a recommendation by Section 5(2) of the Act.
Recommendation.
The Court notes that the Company does not have a grievance procedure in place. Whilst the Union has not claimed the introduction of such procedure the Court is nonetheless obliged by Section 5 to have regard to the disputes resolution procedures in the employment. The Court is also obliged by Section 42(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 to have regard to the provisions of any Code of Practice which appears to be relevant. It seems clear the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No 146 of 2000) is relevant in the present case. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company put in place a grievance procedure which conforms to the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.
Consistent with the code, the Company procedure should provide for Trade Union representation in processing individual grievances and disciplinary matters, where an employee wishes to avail of such representation. The procedure should also provide for the full utilisation of the normal dispute resolution machinery of the State, including the reference of disputes to conciliation, the Rights Commissioner service and the Court, as appropriate.
This procedure should be put in place within one month from the date of this recommendation. The Union should be consulted in relation to it's content. If there is any dispute in relation to the compatibility of the proposed procedures with the Code of Practice, the question may be processed under Section 43 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The issue raised in relation to pay and the provision of pension cover should then be processed through the grievance procedure.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th November 2003______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jo O'Connor, Court Secretary.