BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Clerkin & Ors v Warrenpoint Harbour Authority [2003] NIIT 3286_01 (30 May 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2003/3286_01.html |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CASE REF:3286/01-
3290/01
APPLICANTS: Desmond Clerkin & Others
RESPONDENT: Warrenpoint Harbour Authority
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the question posed to the tribunal by way of a Preliminary Issue in this matter be answered as follows – 'Yes. On 30 May 2001'.
Appearances:
The applicants were represented by Mr F O'Donoghue, QC instructed by Rosemary Conolly Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Mr A Devlin, Barrister-at-Law instructed by Brangam Bagnall Solicitors.
EXTENDED REASONS
"Whether in the events which have happened, the changes in the terms and conditions of employment as negotiated and agreed between the respondent and SIPTU, on or about 23 May 2001, are incorporated into the applicant's contract of employment, and if so, on what date?"
The negotiations covered a variety of matters, flexibility, life cover, sick pay and the like but, most regularly, pay. Over the years, the usual nature of the package would have been for an increase in pay for all. However, there were times when there were increases for some and a freeze for others (1995), when the percentage increases for different groups of workers were different (1999), and, on one occasion, when the rate at which a tonnage bonus was to be paid was halved (1993). This last was a change more apparent than real since it was anticipated by both management and union that tonnage throughput would double thus producing the same amount of bonus at the end of the day.
The evidence of both Mr McDaid and the two applicants who gave evidence, was that the voting at the meetings where the final package was to be accepted or rejected, was not always unanimous. Indeed, Mr McDaid suggested that it was seldom unanimous. According to Mr McDaid, if some men voted against they would abide by the decision of the majority. This was confirmed by the applicants. One of them said, in cross-examination, that there were occasions when the vote was not unanimous and usually the majority carried the day. That, he said, "was the way it was" in previous years. The majority carried the day and the proposal was implemented after a majority vote. The other applicant who gave evidence agreed that when the votes were not unanimous the majority had carried the day. He indicated that when he was in the majority he expected the minority to follow and vice versa.
The evidence of the applicants and of Mr McDaid was confirmed by the Respondent's Chief Executive, Mr Goldie, who described the process outlined above as being the custom and procedure by way of which alterations to pay and/or conditions of employment were negotiated, agreed and subsequently implemented.
Subsequent to the meeting of 30 May 2001, the applicants discussed the unions failure to hold a ballot on industrial action or to take a vote including casual labourers since they felt that, had this been done, the vote might have gone the other way. They did not, however, pursue the matter in writing or make a formal complaint.
Collective agreements do not automatically bind individual employees even when those employees are members, as they were in this case, of the union which negotiated the agreement. However, there can be a contractual term that such collective agreements will be binding; that term can be expressed or implied; and if implied, it can be by way of custom and practice. There is clearly no express agreement in this case. There were no written contracts of employment. According to one of the applicants, there were no documents or even a series of documents. If the terms of the collective agreement were to be incorporated in the applicants' contracts of employment it would have to be by way of an implied term. The only way in which such a term could be implied, on the evidence, was by way of custom and practice. That, indeed, was the respondent's case.
For terms to be implied through custom and practice, that custom and practice must be 'reasonable, certain and notorious'. In this case, there was clear evidence of a very long standing tradition of collective bargaining in relation to pay and conditions between the management and the union. Indeed, this arrangement had been in place throughout the applicants employment with the respondent. There was no other way, or none about which evidence was given, in which pay, terms or conditions had been or were negotiated. Given Mr Goldie's evidence that the ATGWU and subsequently SIPTU had been the unions recognised by the Respondent from the date of its inception as holding the exclusive bargaining and negotiating right on behalf of the employees this is not surprising. As one of the applicants said in cross-examination "it worked well for both us and the company". The evidence on all sides was wholly in agreement. Everyone knew what the procedure was. Everyone knew there would be negotiations. Everyone knew that a deal would be reached. Everyone knew that that deal would then be accepted or rejected by the men in general meeting and that the result of that meeting would be decided by majority vote. The Tribunal is satisfied that all parties fully recognised that the agreement negotiated between the management and the union, once accepted by the men by majority vote in general meeting, would be implemented and would thus become terms and conditions of employment without any further action or formality.
It is difficult to see how, in the case of a fully unionised work force being accorded proper union representation by a union which operates on proper democratic principles, this could be regarded as unreasonable. The arrangement was clear and simple and it was well known. In the Tribunal's view, the threefold test is satisfied and, consequently, the question posed to the Tribunal must be answered on the basis that the terms were incorporated into the contracts of employment of the applicants on 30 May 2001.
It was further argued that custom and practice could only relate to circumstances, so far as pay was concerned, such as those which had prevailed in the past, when the worst which had been proposed for some members was a pay freeze. The Tribunal rejects this argument. While it is true that, for the most part, pay increases would have been recommended there had been occasions when some members of the work force had suffered by comparison with others when, as the applicants themselves agreed, the minority was expected to follow the majority and accept the decision. Furthermore, there had been an occasion when a decision which could potentially have had a significantly damaging affect on bonus payments had been the subject of the customary procedure. The Tribunal considers that the evidence shows that the arrangement was, as has been set out above, that negotiations regarding pay and conditions were entered into on a collective basis and included all pay and conditions whether beneficial or detrimental.
Finally, it was argued on behalf of the applicants that there could not be a term arising by way of custom and practice since the respondent did not consider themselves bound as evidenced by the terms of the letter delivered to the men on 30 May 2001 and further, by the terms of the schedule of progress prepared by the respondent and containing a reference to 'holding out'.
The evidence of Mr Goldie was that the letters handed out were in similar terms to pro forma letters which had been issued to newer employees at the time they had been taken on. The Tribunal accepts this evidence. The letter itself is clearly not wholly appropriate for employees such as the respondents and seems to be designed for new employees. At its commencement it purports to offer employment to the named employee, a position inappropriate to the applicants who had a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 25 years service respectively. While the end of the letter refers to the acceptance of terms and conditions it also constitutes an acknowledgement of receipt of the statement of the terms and conditions. Mr Goldie's evidence, which the Tribunal accepted, was that the applicants had no written contracts but new employees had signed to show receipt of details of their terms and conditions and he wanted a similar note accepted by the remaining employees. The note referring to 'holding out' is followed by a reference to a future meeting when the union was seeking improved terms for those 'holding out' and being told there was no question of any such improved terms and indeed that notice of change had already been issued. While the letter and schedule suggest, at first glance, some uncertainty about the respondent's position they were explained by Mr Goldie's evidence and by their context and the Tribunal is satisfied that at all times the respondent considered itself bound by the majority decision of the men reached on 30 May 2001, in the customary manner.
applicants, by their conduct subsequent to the introduction of the revised terms, had impliedly accepted the revisions and waived any breaches.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 29 & 30 May 2003 and 31 July 2003, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
