FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MICROSEMI IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Failure of Employer to allow Worker to have representation in persuing bullying claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member in relation to the Employer's refusal to allow the Worker to be represented by the Union in the process of the investigation of the Worker's bullying claim. In December 2010, the Worker raised a complaint of bullying against his supervisor. The Employer invited the Worker to attend a meeting indicating that he could be accompanied by a member of staff. The Union on behalf of its member responded to the Employer advising that he wished to be represented by the Union however no response was received by the Employer. From that time onwards the Employer refused to interact with the Union however on several occasions continued to communicate directly with the Worker. The Employer subsequently contacted the Worker advising that they were closing the issue based on the Worker's refusal to attend a meeting with them.
On the 14th June, 2011 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th April, 2012. The Employer did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer wrote to the Court indicating that it did not intend to participate in the Court's investigation of the dispute. The Court finds it regrettable that the employer failed to avail of the opportunity to explain its position or to cooperate with the Court in the discharge of its statutory function.
It seems clear that the main issue in contention between the parties centres on their differing interpretations of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures which was promulgated by Statutory Instrument No.146 of 2000 and in particular if the Code allows an individual to avail of trade union representation in processing a grievance with his or her employer.
Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 provides a statutory mechanism by which this Court may give an interpretation of a Code of Practice made under the Act. Pursuant to that provision the Court has given its interpretation of the Code of Practice on the point now in issue. In Recommendation LCR18364 - Dunnes Stores Tralee and MANDATE Trade Union- the Court pointed out that the right of election as between the modes of representation provided for by the Code of Practice rests with the worker. Hence, where a worker elects to be represented by a trade union in dealing with either a grievance or a disciplinary issue he is entitled, under the Code to be so represented.
The Court recommends that the employer should afford the worker associated with this dispute to be represented by his trade union, in processing his grievance, in accordance with the Code of Practice as interpreted by the Court in LCR 18364.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd April 2012______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.