FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PALLAS FOODS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Claim for trade union representation and compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by a Worker for trade union representation at any meeting in respect of his grievance.
The employer's position is that trade union representation in respect of his grievance was not permissible under their Employee Complaints and Grievance Procedure.
On the 22ndFebruary 2013 the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4thSeptember 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker returned to work from a prolonged period of absence due to a workplace accident. On his return he sought the co-operation of the Company in facilitating him with work times that would coincide with Court approved visiting rights. He was disappointed that his Supervisor did not take the request seriously. A number of letters were then sent by his Solicitor to the company seeking their co-operation.
2. On the 6thNovember 2012, the Worker was operating a forklift and had a minor accident. He reported this to his Supervisor and filled out the accident report form. The following day he was informed he was not allowed to drive the forklift until the accident was investigated.
3. This was the first time a worker was stood down from the forklift following a minor accident. His Supervisor told him he would have to do further training before he could drive the forklift again. The Worker went to HR and said he wished to make a complaint and be represented by a trade union official. The Worker has been absent from work for the past 10 months and has incurred a loss of earnings. He is claiming compensation for the difference in his net pay and what he received in Social Welfare payments.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker raised a grievance on or about the 13thNovember 2013. This grievance relates to his alleged treatment by his Supervisor.
2. The Worker requested a trade union official to represent him and was informed that trade union representation in respect of his grievance was not permissible under their Employee Complaints and Grievance Procedure.
3. The Employer is committed to providing a fair and comprehensive policy in respect of employee complaints and grievances. The Employee Complaints and Grievance Procedure provides for a escalating series of steps and measures commensurate with the type and nature of the employee’s grievance and provides external facilitation of difficult disputes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the company should recognise the union for the purpose of individual representation. The Court does not see any basis for the union’s claim, as presented, for compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
17th September,2013.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.