Recommendation
Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002212
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A General Operative | A House-building Company |
Representatives | Independent Workers’ Union | Represented by Management |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute seeking a recommendation by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00002212 | 13/02/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Date of Hearing: 30/05/2024
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended), this dispute was assigned to me by the Director General. At a remote hearing on May 30th 2024, I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to put forward their positions in relation to the dispute. The worker was represented by Mr Anthony McIntyre of the Independent Workers’ Union. The employer was represented by the managing director, who was accompanied by the office manager. As the subject matter is a dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the hearing took place in private and the parties are not named but, in accordance with the Act, are referred to as “the worker” and “the employer.”
Summary of the Dispute:
The employer is a house-builder employing around 20 people. The worker commenced employment with him as a general operative on November 30th 2022. On February 1st 2024, he was notified of a disciplinary meeting to be held the following day. His request to be accompanied by a union official was denied. The worker attended the meeting, but he didn’t answer any questions because he felt that he was at a disadvantage due to the absence of a professional advisor. On the form he submitted to the WRC on February 13th 2024, he said that he “awaits the outcome of the hearing but is fearful that he will be dismissed.” At the hearing of this dispute on May 30th 2024, I was informed that the worker wasn’t dismissed in February 2024, but that his employment ended on May 2nd 2024, following a second disciplinary meeting at which he was accompanied by his union representative. The managing director informed me that, when the worker was invited to the first disciplinary meeting in February 2024, the disciplinary procedure provided that he could be accompanied by a colleague. The company now has a HR company providing advice and the policy has been changed. The managing director said that the letter of February 1st 2024 may not have been “worded properly,” but that there was no adverse finding from the meeting of February 2nd. The managing director said that the worker was laid off for a while and when he returned to work, he had two accidents, with the result that he was off work until the end of November 2023. He was on light duties until January 2024, but the managing director said that the worker wasn’t taking direction from his supervisors. He said that he was asked to “cut out the talking at work.” The managing director said that the worker was “well looked after” and treated very well and he said that there is no one more surprised than him to be at this hearing at the WRC. He said that, over the last eight or nine months when the worker was employed, he asked him if he needed to be trained or if he needed help with anything. He said that the worker wasn’t “let go” and that he was offered help. Mr McIntyre referred to the recommendation of the Labour Court in November 2005 on the dispute between Dunnes Stores Tralee and Mandate, LCR 18364. In that dispute, the chairman, Mr Duffy, concluded that, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, Statutory Instrument, 146 of 2000, “it is the employee and not the employer who has the right of election as between the modes of representation provided for by the Code of Practice.” |
Conclusions:
This grievance was submitted to the WRC on February 13th 2024 and concerns the worker’s preference to be represented by a union official rather than a colleague. Based on the recommendation of the Labour Court in the dispute between Dunnes Stores Tralee and Mandate, which was referred to by Mr McIntyre, the industrial mechanisms within which we operate in Ireland provide that, if they choose, an employee may be represented by a trade union official. The failure of this employer to provide for that option in February 2024 was not in accordance with the Code of Practice in Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000. I understand that, with the assistance of a HR advisory company, that policy has been changed. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Taking guidance from the Labour Court in its recommendation in Dunnes Stores Tralee and Mandate, LCR 18364, I recommend that the employer’s disciplinary procedure is amended to provide that, at every stage in the disciplinary process, if it is their preference, workers are permitted to be represented by a trade union representative. |
Dated: 27-08-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000, representation by a union official |