FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KEELING DISTRIBUTION LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Right to Search Policy
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to the application of the Company's "right to search" policy. The Company contends that an agreement concluded in 2005 applies to all SIPTU members. The Union's position is that it does not apply to the three staff members in question as they were employed at another Company location at the time of the agreement and that there is no contractual obligation on them to abide by the search policy. The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 11th January 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th April 2013, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker's in this dispute are not party to the Company Union Agreement on the right to search policy as they were employed at a different location and there is no contractual obligation on them to abide by its terms.
2 It is unacceptable to the workers that they are subject to disciplinary sanctions for not complying with the terms of the policy when it clearly does not apply to them
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 All SIPTU members are covered by the terms of the agreement and the right to search policy. It was agreed and signed off on by the Union and management and clearly applies to all employees of the Company.
2 All other staff members of the Company accept and abide by the terms of the right to search policy, yet three workers refuse on the basis that their contracts does not provide for the search. This is unacceptable as the agreement applies to all staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s contention on behalf of three workers employed since 1998 and 1999, who claim that they are not covered by the Company’s “Right To Search” policy, agreed through a collective agreement in 2005.
The Court notes that the agreement reached in 2005 came about following a meeting held on 9thJune 2005, called for the purpose of updating the existing search policy and at which various members of both management and a number of Union representatives drew up recommendations on how major issues of concern at the time were to be dealt with. The “Rights of Search” collective agreement emerged from these recommendations, was signed by both the Union and management on 16thand 17thJune 2005 and specifically stated that it applied to “All employees of Keelings Distribution”.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, in all the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the three Claimants are party to and are covered by the terms of the “Rights of Search” collective agreement 2005 in its entirety and must abide by its terms.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th May 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.