FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 43(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY CLINIC (REPRESENTED BY PURDY FITZGERALS SOLICITORS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Interpretation of Code of Practice on Grievance and Disiplinary Procedures (S.I.146 of 2000)
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a referral by SIPTU seeking the Labour Court's opinion as to the interpretation of S.I 146 of 2000 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures). The Union's view is that the Code provides for representation in matters of grievance and can include a Trade Union official. The Employer's position is that as it does not recognise Trade Unions for negotiation purposes, it is not compelled to accept Trade Union officials as worker representatives in matters of grievance.
The Union submitted its referral on 14th December 2009 in accordance with Section 43(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29th October, 2010
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Code of practice provides for Trade Union representation in both matters of grievance and discipline. It is unacceptable that the Company refuse to abide by the provisions of the Code in matters of grievance as applies in this case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company does not recognise Trade Unions for negotiation purposes and is therefore not obliged to have Trade Union representation when matters of grievance are raised by its employees.
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 an employee’s grievance concerning health and safety matters, which she wished to pursue with the assistance of a trade union representative and the employer’s refusal to accept the trade union official as her representative. The employer does not recognise the Trade Union for collective bargaining purposes.
The Company refused to produce its Grievance Procedures for the Court to inspect.
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 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. In accordance with Paragraph 4 Clause 6 of the Code the employee concerned must be given the opportunity to avail of the right to be represented during the procedure and when reaching its determination the employer must take into account any representation made on behalf of an employee.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th November 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Opinion should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.