FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : QUINN CEMENT (REPRESENTED BY JOHN HORGAN) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Request by a Trade Union or Excepted Body for a Determination in relation to Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR18151
BACKGROUND:
2. Labour Court recommendation LCR18151 issued on the 31st of March, 2005, following the issuing of DECP052 ( a preliminary hearing) on the 3rd of March, 2005. On the 13th of May, 2005, the Union wrote to the Court asking it to issue a Determination in accordance with Section 6(1) of the 2001, Act. The following is the Court's determination:
DETERMINATION:
Section 6 of the 2001 Act states in subsection (3) that a determination under subsection (1) shall be in the same terms as a recommendation under Section 5 except where:
(a) the Court has agreed a variation with the parties or
(b) the Court has decided that the recommendation concerned or a part of that recommendation was grounded on unsound or incomplete information.
In that recommendation LCR-18151 dated 30/05/05, the Court took the view that it did not consider it appropriate to issue substantive recommendations under Section 5(1) of the Act on the claims under investigation on the grounds that, from the information given to the Court, the terms and conditions of employment of those associated with the claim, when viewed in their totality, would not be out of line with acceptable standards.
This finding took into account in particular the Company's assurances that:-
- it was the stated intention of the Company to move to a 39 hour week
-
that it intended to review its Grievance & Disciplinary procedure (noting that any complaint alleging an infringement of the Code of Practice (S.I.146/200) can be addressed pursuant to S43 (2) of the I.R. Act 1990)
-
it would use the machinery of the State in appropriate cases
-
it was its intention to introduce a Sick Pay Scheme.
It is the opinion of the Court that, as the above commitments in regard to the 39 hour week and Sick Pay Scheme have not yet been honoured, the revised Grievance & Disciplinary procedure does not meet the requirements of S.I.146/2000 and the Company has failed to make use of the machinery of the State in quoted cases, the above recommendation was grounded on information which, in the view of the Court, was unsound or incomplete. Accordingly, the Court now determines as follows:-
39-hour week
The Company shall move to a 39-hour week with effect from the 1st of July 2005 without any loss of weekly pay
Grievance & Disciplinary Procedure
At the original hearing, the Employer informed the Court that it intended to review its internal procedures having regard to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance & Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. no. 146 of 2000).
The Grievance & Disciplinary Procedures contained within the revised Company Handbook do not, in the opinion of the Court, comply with the above provisions, specifically in regard to an employee’s right to third party representation, impartial determination and the principles of natural justice. The basic differences between dealing with issues of grievance and disciplinary issues should also be more clearly set out.
The machinery of the state should be used in cases not resolved under the revised Grievance & Disciplinary Procedures.
The Court, accordingly, determines that the Employer shall again review its internal procedures having regard to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance & Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. no. 146 of 2000) and shall ensure that its procedures comply with the provisions of the code. Any dispute concerning the compatibility of the revised internal procedures with the provisions of the Code of Practice should be processed through the procedures in Section 43(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
Sick Pay Scheme
The Court notes the intention of the Company to introduce a contributory Sick Pay Scheme with effect from July, 2005.
The Court would observe that for the categories of worker represented by the Union, the introduction of a scheme which is contributory, and which has a waiting time of two weeks before payment, is unusual. Most schemes which are in line with generally acceptable standards are non-contributory and have a three-day waiting period.
The Court has difficulty accepting that the scheme put forward by the Company conforms to the norms which would apply if collective bargaining were taking place between an employer and employees represented by a trade union or accepted body.
The Court accordingly determines that the Sick Pay Scheme:
- (a) be non-contributory
- (b) be operative following the first three days of certified illness
- (c) provide for a maximum of ten weeks pay in a twelve month period (less social welfare entitlements)
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th August, 2005______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.