FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 43(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WRIGHT WINDOW SYSTEMS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Grievance Procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was originally established by a local family and commenced operations in 1969 to manufacture and service P.V.C., Aluminium and timber windows and doors. In the last couple of years the Company was bought out by the Heithon Group. The Company currently employs approximately 200 people.
In August 2004 a substantial number of employees joined the Union. The Union maintained that the Company refused to engage in negotiations and a claim was referred to the Labour Relations Commission under the provision of the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. 76 of 2004).
Subsequently a Labour Court hearing took place and Recommendation No. 18111 issued in February 2005. This resulted in the Company issuing a Grievance and Disciplinary procedure. The Union were of the opinion that it did not comply with S.I. 146 of 2000 and referred the issue back to the Labour Court for a determination which issued as DIR058 in July 2005.
In October 2005 a number of redundancies took place. The Union were not happy at the method of selection or the severance package and sought to raise their grievances with the Company under the Grievance Procedure. The Union maintain that the Company failed to allow their concerns to be processed. The Company state that Disciplinary and Grievance hearings are held as per DIR058.
The Union referred the issue to the Labour Court on the 10th January, 2006, in accordance with Section 43(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th September, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A number of the Union's members sought a meeting with the Company under the Grievance Procedure to address their concerns on future redundancies. The Company refused stating that it was a hypothetical grievance.
2. The Company's failure to meet with the Union members or a Union Official is in breach of the Code of Practice S.I. 146 of 2000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has no problem with individual representation but does not engage in collective representation. It is therefore in compliance with the Code of Practice.
2. Disciplinary and Grievance hearings in the Company are held as per the Determination DIR058 as issued by the Labour Court on the 6th July 2006.
OPINION:
The Union applied to the Court under Section 43(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 for an opinion as to the interpretation of Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, S.I. No 146 of 2000 under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The background to the Union’s application relates to the Company’s refusal to meet the Union’s members, and its Official as their representative, and to attend a Labour Relations Commission conciliation conference, in relation to selection for redundancy in the event of redundancies taking place in the Company in the future.
The Company produced its Grievance Procedures for the Court to inspect, having examined the procedures, the Court is satisfied that it conforms generally to the provisions of the Code of Practice, affords individual employees rights of representation of their choice at all stages of the process and in the event that matters are unresolved at local level, it provides for referral to the Labour Relations Commission and other relevant third parties. The Company do not recognise the Trade Union for collective bargaining purposes.
The Company gave details to the Court of two individual grievance hearings held to deal with the issue of selection for redundancy in the case of two named employees who were represented by a Trade Union Official. However, it stated that when the Union referred to employee grievances without identifying individual members, the Company was not prepared to discuss the matter. The Company told the Court that had the Union sought to raise the matter on an individual basis that each case would have been dealt with, as a separate matter, and the Company would have participated in any referral to the Labour Relations Commission and other relevant third parties.
A general provision of the S.I. No 146 states :
- “This Code of Practice contains general guidelines on application of grievance procedures and the promotion of best practice in giving effect to such procedures. While the Code outlines the principles of fair procedures for employers and employees generally, it is of particular relevance to situations of individual representation.”
Paragraph 4 of the Code states:
- “For the purposes of this Code of Practice, “employee representative” includes a colleague of the employee’s choice and a registered trade union but not any other person or body unconnected with the enterprise.”
The Code Of Practice requires a Grievance Procedure to be in place and provides for an employee to process issues of complaint/concern through that procedure and be represented by a representative of their choice including a trade union official.The Court is of the view that the Code allows for a Trade Union to process grievances in respect of an identified individual employee and for the employer to meet with that official as representative of the employee.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd October, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Opinion should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.