ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006340
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00008515-001 | 01/12/2016 |
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Craft Helper | A Mining Company |
Representatives | Peter Glynn SIPTU | Ms Briana Duffy, IBEC |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/05/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney
Location of Hearing: The Ardboyne Hotel
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Complainant is a Craft Helper of sixteen years service with the Respondent. The Complainant was subject to two disciplinary sanctions in September 2016 and October 2016 for which he received a verbal and subsequent written warning. He has submitted that theses sanctions were disproportionate and he is seeking to have the written warning removed from his record. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was initially employed as a Craft helper with the Electrical Section. The Complainant has argued that a collective agreement was made between his Union and the Respondent in September 2015, and accepted by the Union in October 2015, where he was now required to be flexible in attending training related to mechanical work and where he was also required to carry a hand held radio for communication. However the Complainant argued that the agreement was never explained to him (although he admitted he did vote on it) and therefore the conditions that required his flexibility as outlined above did not apply to him. He advised that he was told by his Union at the time of the agreement the only flexibility that he was required to carry out was related to oiling and greasing. On that basis the Complainant maintained that the disciplinary actions taken against him in September 2016 for refusing to attend training to support the mechanical work, and in October 2016 for failing to carry a radio were disproportionate as these tasks were never part of his work requirements. As he was not in agreement with the collective agreement he argued he was not required to complete the training or carry a radio and therefore he should not have been subject to a disciplinary sanction. The Complainant also maintained that other Craft Helpers were also not in agreement with the collective agreement and he argued that the agreement was not explained to him by the Trade Union. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent which has been in operation since 1977 advised that it was subject to a rationalisation programme in 2015. In September 2015 an agreement was reached with the Complainant’s Trade Union to reduce the number of Craft Helpers from 4 to 3. In addition the Craft Helpers agreed to flexibility and that they would carry a radio for communications. The agreement also included the provision of training where necessary. The Respondent maintained that the Collective Agreement was signed by the Trade Union on October 2015 and included “the craft helpers will work flexibly as a single team providing services in both mechanical and electrical sections of maintenance department with training provided where necessary. This includes completion and signing off of all work connected to the scheduled lubrication programme. To provide an effective service all craft helpers will carry and use a radio for communication”. Following that a Manager met and confirmed with the staff the nature of the agreement. The Complaint was subsequently asked to participate in training in September 2016 but refused, and following a disciplinary procedure he was issued with a verbal warning. In October 2016 the Complainant refused to carry a radio for communications, and following a further disciplinary hearing he was issued with a written warning. The Respondent maintained that in light of the Complainant’s refusal to honour elements of the flexibility agreed in the collective bargaining it was correct in conducting the disciplinary hearings. In this regard the Respondent maintained its actions and disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. |
Recommendation:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 I am entitled to investigate the matter and make a recommendation to the parties setting forth my opinion on the merits of the dispute.
Having considered the matters and representations made by the parties I am satisfied that the Complainant’s Trade Union and the Respondent entered into a collective agreement in September 2015. As part of this collective agreement the Complainant’s trade Union held a ballot and accepted that “the craft helpers will work flexibly as a single team providing services in both mechanical and electrical sections of maintenance department with training provided where necessary. This includes completion and signing off of all work connected to the scheduled lubrication programme. To provide an effective service all craft helpers will carry and use a radio for communication”.
Whilst acknowledging that the Complainant may be personally unhappy with elements of the flexibility required from him, I am satisfied that the flexibility was subject to discussions and consultation with the Union and the employer, and where all staff were balloted in relation to the rationalisation programme. Collective bargaining is an essential element of most unionised workplaces, and is a cornerstone of the industrial relations procedures. In this particular case collective bargaining is also a central component for determining the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment. As such the Complainant is obliged to work within a negotiated collective agreement that is made between his Trade Union and his employer.
I am therefore satisfied that the Complainant has an obligation to fulfil the reasonable tasks as per the collective agreement. Both the Complainant’s participation on training for the operation of a mobile crane, and the carrying and use of a radio for communication are elements central to the collective agreement. As such the Complainant is obliged to meet these reasonable instructions.
I therefore conclude that the Respondent was entitled to instigate appropriate disciplinary action for the Complainant’s refusal to adhere to the issues agreed within the collective agreement. Having followed its disciplinary procedures I recommend that the warnings issued to the Complainant stand, albeit it is acknowledged they have now expired under the time period within the Respondent’s disciplinary procedures.
Dated: 18th May 2017