FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GE ENERGY IRELAND LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Various Issues
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to shift changes and various other interpersonal issues that prevailed in the employment. The Union's position is that changes to the shift pattern were introduced without the agreement of or consultation with the worker. It contends that unilateral changes to terms an conditions of employment constitute a breach of the employment contract. The Union is seeking a) the return of the worker to his three shift cycle, b)the repayment of loss of earnings due to the non-payment of the EMS Bonus, c) reimbursement of medical expenses, d) clarification that Gas Commodity Trading does not form part the worker's terms and conditions of employment and e) that the ill treatment of the worker by a senior member of staff cease with immediate effect.
Management's position is that the shift pattern changes were required and the majority of staff have accepted the changed shift patterns and no issues exist as a result of the changes. In relation to the other grievances raised by the worker, Management contends that all were investigated in line with Company procedures. The performance appraisal that the worker is dissatisfied with occurred as a result of the failure to attend and complete the necessary Company training requirements.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on 1st May 2015 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 28th October 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker has, and continues to be, treated unfairly in his employment. Unilateral changes to his contract of employment have been implemented and the worker has been subject to continuous bullying and harassment as a result of questioning these changes. The Union considers that its claim as outlined is fair and reasonable and should be conceded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 Management has acted reasonably at all times. It has listened to the workers concerns and investigated all grievances raised. Procedurally all investigations were carried out in line with Company policy although it is clear that the worker is dissatisfied with the outcome. In the circumstances Management is of the view that it has followed its policies and procedures and has done everything within its power to resolve the workers difficulties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the subject matter of this referral has been processed through the internal processes of the Company. However, the Claimant remains aggrieved at the outcome of that process.
The Union does not claim that the procedures utilised were unfair or in any way deficient by the standards that would normally be expected of a fair employer. Rather, the only point taken on behalf of the Claimant is that he disagrees with the outcome.
The Company procedures make no provision for an independent external review following the completion of the internal stages. It seems to the Court that in the circumstances of this case the Claimant should be afforded an opportunity to make a final appeal to an external person appointed for that purpose on anad hocbasis.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties should agree on the appointment of a suitable person to hear such an appeal. In default of agreement the Court will make a nomination. The parties should also agree on the terms of reference for the appeal.
The parties should also agree that the outcome of this appeal will be final and binding on all parties
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th November 2015______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.