FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOXMORE PLASTICS LTD (REPRESENTED BY BOXMORE PLASTICS LTD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Unilateral withdrawal of Long Service Award and failure to acknowledge the Grievance Procedure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the withdrawal of a long service award previously presented to workers in recognition of 25 years' service with the Company. The Union on behalf of its member contends that it is a long established practice within the Company to present employees with a long service award of a gold watch to mark 25 years' service. In this case the Worker involved was not presented with the token watch. It is the Company's position that the practice of awarding staff in recognition of service had long since ceased and would not be re-instated. The Union further maintains that the Company has failed to acknowledge its own Grievance Procedure, by disallowing the worker to pursue the issue through this mechanism.The dispute could not be 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th December, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th March, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is an established custom and practice within the Company to recognise long service with a token gift.
2. The Union maintains that the Worker in this case should have been awarded in recognition for his 25 years' service with the Company.
3. The Union contends that the Employer is in breach of a Company/Union agreement by refusing the Worker the opportunity to pursue his claim through the Company's Grievance Procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The practice of awarding long service ceased in 2003 and has not been carried out since.
2. The Company sees no merit in re-introducing the practice of awarding service with a token gesture.
3. The Company asserts that the Grievance Procedures issues were dealt with previously before the Labour Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends as follows in relation to the issues raised in this referral:-
Breach of Procedure
This matter was dealt with by the Court in Recommendation LCR20700, which was accepted by both parties. The matter should now be regarded as resolved.
Long Service Award
The Court cannot accept that the provision of a long service award could properly be regarded as a condition of employment established by custom and practice or otherwise. In the Court's view the previous practice in that regard was complementary or ex gratia and could not be classified as an entitlement. Furthermore, the practice ceased in 2002 and there is no basis upon which the Court could recommend its reinstatement.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th March 2015______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.