FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CASTOLIN EUTECTIC IRELAND LIMITED (IBEC) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Grievance & Disciplinary Procedure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union in relation to the Employer's Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure. The Union contends that the procedures currently in place within the Company are outdated and do not conform to modern day Industrial Relations best practice standards. The Union therefore is seeking to have the procedures overhauled and modernised. The Employer rejects the Union's claim, arguing that it sees no pressing requirement to change the procedures that have applied within the Company since 1974. Despite previous attempts to negotiate on the issue, the matter could not be resolved at local level. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and to the Labour Court at different stages however agreement could not be reached between the parties. The Union referred the case to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29th January, 2016.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure currently in place is archaic and is not fit for purpose.
2. The Union further contends that the Employer is in breach of a Company/Union Agreement by refusing to engage further on this issue.
3. The Union is seeking the introduction of a newly adapted Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure within the Company.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that it is not in breach of a Company/Union Agreement regarding dispute resolution and furthermore, it has made attempts to negotiate with the Union.
2. The Employer refutes the Union's claim that the Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure is unfit for its purpose.
3. The Employer has put forward proposed amendments to its procedures however it is not in a position to make any alteration to its "Violation of Rules of Conduct" policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties. The matter before the Court relates to the disciplinary procedure in place in the Company since 1974. The parties have not been able to find a basis to engage constructively to address issues which either party may have with the procedure.
The Court has examined the procedure as written. The Court accepts that the procedure as written sets out clearly the range of disciplinary sanctions and the steps to be followed in the event of a disciplinary incident occurring. The Court considers this level of clarity to be a desirable feature of the disciplinary framework in the company.
The Court notes that the procedure as written also sets out a view as to a scale of offences which could give rise to disciplinary action and the nature of the sanction to apply in the event of particular incidents occurring. The Court has been assured that in any case where the Union considers a penalty to be too severe or otherwise inappropriate an appeal procedure is available.
The Court recommends that the procedure as written should be laid out afresh setting out the text at 1. (a) and (b), 3 (1) and 3 (2) as the main body of the disciplinary procedure. The table at 3 (2) should be set out as text detailing that the disciplinary sanctions which will be applied will be in accordance with the steps set out and applied as considered appropriate in response to the seriousness with which any disciplinary event is viewed. The text as written in section 2 of the document should be set out as an appendix to the main body of text and should be described as guidelines setting out the company view of the seriousness of certain events to which the scale of sanctions set out in the main body will be applied.
The Court Recommends that this fresh lay out of the text should be considered as resolving any current issues as regards the 1974 document and any further concerns not related to what will now be an appendix to the main document should be the subject of engagement between the parties in the normal way.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
2nd February 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.