FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KELLYSDAN LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-109202-ir-11-GC
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-109202-ir-11-GC. The issue concerns the Company's grievance procedure. The Union (on behalf of the worker) is claiming that the grievance procedure in place is inadequate as it does not provide for Trade Union representation in issues of grievance. The Union contends that this is at variance with the provisions of Code of Practice No: S.I.146 of 2000 which provides for representation by a colleague of choice or a trade union representative. Management contends that the code of practice only applies if there are no appropriate grievance procedures in place which, it claims, is not the case in this instance.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. Her Recommendation issued on the 30th November 2011. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the worker should raise her grievance through the employer's grievance procedure in the first instance. If the issue was not resolved satisfactorily, the substantive issue could then be raised with the appropriate third party.
On the 23rd December 2011, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8th June, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The grievance procedures in place are not agreed. The procedures in question form part of the contract of employment and must be accepted and signed or the worker in question will not be offered employment
2 The appropriate Code of Practice (S.I. 146 of 2000) allows for representation in issues of grievance and discipline. The Code provides that the worker in question may be represented by a colleague or a trade union representative. Management's position in this regard is clearly at variance with the provisions of the Code.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The provisions of S.I. 146 of 2000 apply only in cases where there are no other procedures in place. In this cases there is a grievance procedure which is accepted by the worker in the contract of employment.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the grievance procedure in place provides for an employee to be accompanied by a fellow worker and accordingly does not comport with the provisions of S.I. 146 of 2000 as it does not provide for representation by a "colleague of the employee's choice and a registered trade union."
Accordingly, the Court affirmsLCR18364and recommends that the grievance procedure be amended to have it comport with the terms of S.I. 146 of 2000.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th July 2012______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.