FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IMPACT/IALPA) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. The 'Disciplinary Appeal Board' process is a valid and binding agreement between Aer Lingus and IALPA, and the worker should be permitted a hearing under that Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is that the Company has refused to recognise and implement an agreement it has with IMPACT/IALPA - the "Appeals Machinery in Disciplinary Disputes". The Union claims that the agreement was established between the Company and IALPA following LCR No.1298 which issued on the 25th of March, 1960, and has been in the IALPA 'Blue Book' since 1961. The Company's case is that the "agreement" never existed and that the current appeals procedure is that found in the Company's Staff Manual. Under Section 17(9) of the Staff Manual it states:
"Detailed Procedures on disciplinary matters have been agreed with Trade Unions and associations representing some categories of employees. Such procedures should be followed where appropriate".
IALPA sought to invoke the 'Appeals Machinery in Disciplinary Disputes' and replace the final appeal as described in the Staff Manual.
The establishment of an 'Appeals Board' was requested. Aer Lingus responded to this request by stating that"...the disciplinary process was carried out under the terms of the Aer Lingus Staff Manual" in accordance with the agreement and that the 'Appeals Board' "...is an IALPA document as opposed to a Company Union agreement".It cited the Staff Manual - Section 17(5.4) - as the source of a process for further appeal.
The present dispute has come about as a result of disciplinary action taken against a worker following an incident on the 7th of December, 2000. Following an investigation, a hearing took place under the Company's Staff Manual and the worker was demoted to the rank of First Officer. The worker appealed the decision but, following an appeal hearing, was unsuccessful in having the decision overturned. A second appeal was lodged by the worker through the use of the Appeals Board as outlined in the IALPA 'Blue Book'. The Company responded in June, 2001, stating that a further appeal could be lodged as per the Staff Manual but that the 'Blue Book' was not part of a Company / Union agreement. Further correspondence took place between the parties and a further meeting took place on the 8th of July, 2002. The result of the meeting was that the Company's decision remained and that the sanction against the worker was "open ended".
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 26th of September, 2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of January, 2004. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Staff Manual provides for procedures beyond those specified in the Manual. This is why the Union sought to invoke the "Appeals Machinery in Disciplinary Disputes".
2. The agreement following LCR 1298 has been in the Union's 'Blue Book' since 1961 although it has never been invoked to date. The Union, however, believes that it is a valid agreement and was never formally dissolved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not believe that the 'Appeals Board' as referred to in the IALPA 'Blue Book' is a valid and binding agreement.
2. There is no record of an Appeals Board being convened to consider disciplinary sanction. The Company relies solely on the Staff Manual as being the appropriate process before a referral to the appropriate statutory third party.
3. The disciplinary process involving the worker was fair. The appeals process availed of by him is final and he has no claim for a further appeal under any Company/Union mechanism.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties. Labour Court Recommendation No: 1298 - issued in 1960 - recommended “the Company should give favourable consideration to the Association’s request for the setting up of suitable appeals machinery”.It is now being put to the Court that the Appeals Board structure as detailed in the Association’s handbook for members is a valid and binding agreement between Aer Lingus and IALPA on the establishment of that machinery.
The Court has examined all the evidence put forward and is of the view from the correspondence submitted to the Court that while there was an intention among the parties to establish such an appeals mechanism, there is no evidence confirming agreement, by both sides, of its establishment. The Court is aided in this view by the fact that up to the present time no appeals have ever been invoked by the Union, and such an Appeals Board has never been set up.
Therefore, the Court cannot find in favour of the Union’s claim that the ‘Disciplinary Appeals Board’ process as outlined in the IALPA Handbook (the Blue Book) is a valid and binding agreement between Aer Lingus and IALPA.
The parties accept that normal third party industrial relations procedures are open to the claimant should he wish to pursue the grievance concerning the disciplinary measures taken against him by the Company.
Bearing in mind the Union’s claim as outlined to the Court and the perceived necessity today for such an appeals mechanism, the Court is of the view that, should the parties consider it desirable to establish an appeals board for this group of employees, then it is up to the parties to make that decision.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th January, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.