FULL RECOMMENDATION
) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD NA MONA - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Removal from the payroll
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Unions in relation to 13 staff members that were taken off the payroll by the Company from 18th November 2013 to 29th November 2013. The issue concerns the introduction of Hand-Held Devices (HHD's) and the worker's refusal to operate the devices on their introduction. Management's position is that the Company grievance procedure provides that the disputed duties should be carried out under protest while the issue goes through the agreed process. The Unions contend that Management unilaterally changed the workers' terms and conditions by insisting that they use the HHD's without agreement or negotiation on the issue.
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 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd June 2014.
UNIONS ARGUMENT:
3 1 The Unions are seeking that the workers be paid for the two weeks in question. It was Management who removed the workers from the payroll after they refused to have their terms and conditions of employment unilaterally changed without agreement on the issue in dispute. In these circumstances Management's actions fall well short of how a reasonable employer would treat its workforce.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The workers did not act in compliance with the grievance procedure in relation to refusing to use the HHD's. As the workers refused to carry out a legitimate Management instruction, there was no alternative but to remove them from the payroll.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides in this dispute.
The evidence presented to the Court discloses that the workers involved in this dispute did not comply with Section 7.0 of the agreed Bord na Mona Collective Grievances/Dispute Resolution Policy and Procedure. As a consequence they were taken off the payroll while the matter at issue was addressed by the parties. The purpose of the “Procedure” is to provide the parties with a mechanism for resolving disputes by means other than a withdrawl of labour on the one hand or a lockout on the other. It expressly states the following
“During the processing of a grievance the employees will work in accordance with the instructions of their Supervisor, albeit under protest, if necessary, while Management/employee representatives at an appropriate level seek to resolve the matter cognisant at all times of the principles contained in the agreed IR Protocol Review of December 2008”.
In this case the workers concerned were instructed to operate hand-held work recording and reporting devices. Contrary to Section 7.0 above they refused to do so while the matters at issue were processed through the agreed procedures.
In the light of the express terms of the agreed procedures in place in this Company the Court finds that they were not complied with in this case and accordingly does not recommend concession of the Unions’ claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
26th June 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.