FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BAUSCH & LOMB (REPRESENTED BY IBEC SOUTH EAST) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation Of Aspect Of Company / Union Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. In September 2006, following a disciplinary hearing, Management notified the Union that a senior shop steward was to be suspended for one week without pay. The Union informed Management that they were appealing the decision. An appeal was heard by Management and the original decision was upheld. The Union informed the company that they wished to have the issue referred to the Labour Relations Commission. In December 2006 the Company informed the Union that they would enact their decision prior to third party intervention. Official Industrial Action was sanctioned after a secret ballot of the members of the Union. The Union informed the Company that it deemed Management's action to be a lock-out of their member under Clause 18 of the Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure. Following discussions between both sides prior to the beginning of industrial action, it was agreed not to implement the suspension pending a joint referral to the Labour Court regarding an interpretation of the Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd January, 2006 in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and both parties agree to be bound by the recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th March, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Comprehensive Agreement between the Company and the Union has been in place for twenty-four years and there is no history of suspension of craftspersons or appeals by this Union. Therefore, the Unions statement that the procedure followed in this case was custom and practice is fictitious.
2 Under Clause 18 of the Grievance Procedures it is quite clear that there can be third party intervention. It states clearly that no action by either side should be taken pending the exhaustion of the procedures. Management's action is in clear breach of procedures. Management's interpretation would not allow justice where an employee with a grievance against a Management decision must serve the sentence prior to third party intervention or investigation.
3 Over the twenty four years numerous agreements have been made between Management and the Union. The Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures have remained intact.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Disciplinary Procedures do not allow for any appeals process, however, the Company offered to have this matter heard through an internal appeals process. There is no provision in the Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures which states that a disciplinary sanction cannot be implemented until all appeals have been exhausted. It is a long established practice of the Company to implement disciplinary sanctions at the point where the decision is made.
2 The Company Management must be able to take effective action in the short term in order to maintain safety, morale and good business practice. Management would be at a disadvantage if decisions that come from disciplinary procedures were required to be put on hold while considered by a third party. It is inevitable that if this was to be the case, the majority of such decisions will be referred right through the third party machinery.
3 A suspension of an employee because of a breach of rules is not a lock-out. The Company procedures and practices comply with the LRC Code of Practice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has been asked in this case to give its interpretation of the Company's Disciplinary Procedure.
The Court does not accept that the imposition of a disciplinary suspension constitutes a lock-out. Moreover, the Disciplinary Procedure, as written, does not preclude the Company from imposing a disciplinary sanction after the completion of all internal appeals and before any third - party investigation is completed.
Accordingly the Court supports the interpretation placed on the Agreement by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th April 2007______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.