FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : NN EUROBALL IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Request by a Trade Union or Excepted Body for a Determination in relation to Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR17925
BACKGROUND:
2. LCR 17925 issued on the 6th of August, 2004. The issues referred were (a) pay, including bonus and cross training issues (b) overtime and weekend work, (c) sick leave scheme and (d) grievance and disciplinary procedures (full details are contained in the recommendation). On the 31st of January, 2005, the Union wrote to the Court seeking a determination in relation to the claim as the Company had failed to implement the recommendation. A second hearing took place on the 6th of April, 2005, at which the Court established that there were three issues to be dealt with - pay, grievance and disciplinary procedures, and cross training. The following is the Court's determination:
DETERMINATION:
The matter before the Court is a request by the Union for a determination pursuant to Section 6(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 (the Acts). The Labour Court issued Recommendation No 17925 on 6th August, 2004.
On 24th September, 2004, the Union informed the Court that, following a ballot of its members, the Recommendation was accepted. However, by letter dated 28th January 2005, the Union requested the Court to issue a Determination as the employer had failed to implement the recommendation.
The Court is satisfied that three of the issues which were the subject of Labour Court Recommendation No 17925 made under Section 5 of the Act have not been resolved.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court hereby issues the following determination under Section 6(1) on the outstanding issues: -
Rates of Pay
In the course of its investigation of this dispute, both parties provided the Court with comprehensive information concerning rates of pay applicable to comparable grades of staff in similar employments. The Court had full and careful regard to all of the information with which it was provided. In formulating its recommendations under Section 5, the Court considered all information submitted by both the Company and the Union.
On the basis of the information before it, the Court accepted that the rates of pay applicable to the staff concerned were not out of line, and the Court did not recommend an increase in the rates of pay as claimed by the Union. The Union now submits that the Court’s recommendation was grounded on “unsound or incomplete information”.
No new information has been submitted by the Union to substantiate its present contention; accordingly, the Court does not accept that its recommendation on pay was based on unsound or incomplete information.
Cross Training
The Court notes that the Company has recently produced proposals on rewarding up-skilling as recommended by the Court in LCR No: 17925. The Union stated that these proposals do not resolve the issue referred to the Court.
The Court notes that the Company’s estimation of the timescale involved in attaining all ten identified skills is approximately 18 months.
The Court notes the Company’s assurance that comprehensive written details of the proposals will be provided, to include projected timescales for attainment of each skill, details of the training to be provided etc. In resolution of this dispute, the Court determines that these details should be made available to each of the employees concerned by the end of May, 2005. The Court further determines that appropriate facilities should be provided to each worker who wishes to participate in the Upskilling/Cross Training Programme.
Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
In its recommendation, LCR17925, the Court recommended that the employer put in place “a grievance and disciplinary procedure which conforms to the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No 146 of 2000)". Consistent with the code, the Court hereby determines that the Company procedure should provide for a trade union official in his/her professional capacity to represent an employee in processing individual grievances and disciplinary matters where an employee wishes to avail of such representation.
The Court cannot and does not determine that the parties engage in collective bargaining in relation to terms and conditions of employment, and nothing contained in this determination should be construed as providing for collective bargaining.
Other Issues
In respect of all other issues referred to in LCR17925, this determination may be read in the same terms as the recommendation issued under section 5.
Implementation
Save as otherwise mentioned above, this determination should be implemented within one month from the date on which it is issued.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th April, 2005______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.