FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LTD - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Contracts
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a group of workers who are claiming that they were entitled to have extra hours assigned to them and the failure by the Employer to do so was a breach of that agreement. The Union and Employer engaged on this issue locally however when they failed to resolve the issue SIPTU referred the case to the Labour Court on behalf of its members in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 May, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties is the application of the Employer/Union 2006 Agreement pertaining to the awarding of extra hours that become available. In this case a group of workers are claiming that they were entitled to have extra hours assigned to them and the failure by the Employer to do so is a breach of that agreement. The Union and the Employer engaged on this issue locally however when they failed to resolve the issue the Union on behalf of its members referred individual cases to the WRC seeking Adjudication. The Employer objected to the Adjudication hearings. The claims albeit a reduced number were then referred to the Labour Court under s20 (1) of the Industrial relations Act 1969.
The cases were all scheduled for a hearing on 16thNovember 2016. During that hearing the Employer made the case that the Union had not adhered to the jointly agreed collective grievance procedure that existed within the company. It was agreed that Mandate would withdraw the individual cases and that the matter would be dealt with as a collective issue under the auspices of the WRC. No agreement was reached at conciliation and the Employer would not agree to a joint referral to the Labour Court in accordance with s26 (1) of the 1990 Act. The Union proceeded to refer the claim under s20 (1) of the1969 Act.
At the hearing on the 23rdMay 2018 it was the Company’s position that despite the fact there was a Union/ Employer agreed grievance procedure there was no obligation on them to agree a joint referral to the Labour court if the issue could not be resolved at conciliation. It was their position that the agreement only obliged them to attend “a” third party and that by attending the Conciliation hearing they had fulfilled their obligations under the agreement.
The Union disputed this and argued that the requirement and indeed expectation following the previous Labour Court hearing was that the issue would be processed to finality through the agreed procedures which included joint referral to the Labour Court. The Union argued that this had been the norm heretofore.
The Courts notes that the collective grievance procedures (stores) states “as per normal practice during any grievance, colleague will work under protest until the grievance procedure is fully exhausted”. It is clear to the Court that that requires both parties to continue in process until all avenues have been exhausted. In the circumstances of this case that has to mean that following the failure to resolve the issue at Conciliation both parties were required to move to the next step i.e. a joint referral to the Labour Court as per s 26 (1) of the 1990 Act.
It has always been the position of the Court that it will uphold Employer/ Worker collective agreements. Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties return to conciliation to agree a joint referral of the issue in dispute in accordance with their own collective agreement and s26(1) of the 1990 Act. The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
18 June 2018______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.