Can a company enforce a union agreement on non union members

Head The Wall

OH's company implemented a new agreement last year with the unions. All union members had a vote on it and my OH was just told "this is happening from Monday" and given a document with the details on it.

The issue is in relation to sick pay, the new agreement reduced it from 6 months to 3 months. She is off sick due to an ongoing bullying issue at the moment and I reckon they will try to enforce this after 3 months. She has complied with other parts of the agreement up to this but that was because of fear of her boss who is the focus of the bullying complaint and she is the only person in the office not in the union.

As my OH is not a member of the union can the company enforce the terms of the agreement on her or will her original contract still be valid.

Shelflife

Tricky one, i would imagine that if its in her contract then they would have to get her permission to change it, if its a general work agreement they would only have to give her adequate notice of a change.

op your oh cant have it both ways though, if she takes the good stuff that the union agrees without formally agreeing it herself then she will have to take the crappy stuff as well.

Head The Wall

Thanks for the reply

There was no good stuff in if - Increased work hours, reduced holidays etc. I told her at the time to ask questions about it as I know they can't just change the terms of her contract without agreement. But by complying with it until now does that have rammifications for her

Shelflife

She needs to check exactly whats in her contract. by operating within the new agreement she may be deemed to have accepted the new conditions as she never objected to them at the time.

Head The Wall

That's the grey area, her contract is basic enough and doesn't mention anything in relation to other agreements. Looks like we'll just have to wait until 3 months is up and see do they enforce it.

TheInquisitor

Head The Wall wrote: »

That's the grey area, her contract is basic enough and doesn't mention anything in relation to other agreements. Looks like we'll just have to wait until 3 months is up and see do they enforce it.

3 Months off sick!?

Wishbone Ash

Shelflife wrote: »

op your oh cant have it both ways though, if she takes the good stuff that the union agrees without formally agreeing it herself then she will have to take the crappy stuff as well.

Head The Wall wrote: »

There was no good stuff in if - Increased work hours, reduced holidays etc.

Shelflife means that, to date, she may have enjoyed benefits in her terms and conditions of employment which were negotiated for ove the years rby trade unions. Some non-union members adopt a very smug attitude about not being in a union but seem to have no bother accepting the better working conditions.

Generally, in my experience, if an employer recognises a trade union/trade unions, any outcome of changes in terms and conditions of employment negotiated between the employer and the trade union are applicable to all staff.

encyclopedia

This really shows how important it is to join the Union, if she had joined she would have had a vote and been able to object to the new terms. The fact that the employees who were union members had a vote shows that the company must be union complying making any changes partially democratic. By not joining she is a lone voice and has nobody to represent her, if she wishes to disagree with the terms I would imagine that she would have to foot any legal costs. The union allows members to collectively voice concerns making it a stronger argument then the lone voice - a company can replace one member of staff quite easily but to replace everyone would be quite difficult, basically she should have and should join a union.

Her position should be raised with a member of HR to try and get an understanding of the companies policy on contract changing.

Mrs OBumble

Head The Wall wrote: »

That's the grey area, her contract is basic enough and doesn't mention anything in relation to other agreements. Looks like we'll just have to wait until 3 months is up and see do they enforce it.

Is she really expecting that her illness will last for that long?

TBH, if she's on paid sick leave for that long it sounds like a mightily good deal already. If I was the company, I'd be pushing for a medical retirement.

(Remember, many Irish companies don't offer ANY paid sick leave.)

Head The Wall

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Shelflife means that, to date, she may have enjoyed benefits in her terms and conditions of employment which were negotiated for ove the years rby trade unions. Some non-union members adopt a very smug attitude about not being in a union but seem to have no bother accepting the better working conditions.

Generally, in my experience, if an employer recognises a trade union/trade unions, any outcome of changes in terms and conditions of employment negotiated between the employer and the trade union are applicable to all staff.

Firstly you may not be aware but not everyone was earning 1k a week during the boom, she didn't receive any perks negotiated by the union in her time there, there didn't seem to be anything gained by union members either. The union in there came across as ineffective and useless according to other colleagues of hers in there whom I have spoken to and quizzed about it.

Secondly an agreement between a union and a company is exactly that. As my OH is not a member of a union the agreement is not relevant to her and her original contract would still stand.

encyclopedia wrote: »

This really shows how important it is to join the Union, if she had joined she would have had a vote and been able to object to the new terms. The fact that the employees who were union members had a vote shows that the company must be union complying making any changes partially democratic. By not joining she is a lone voice and has nobody to represent her, if she wishes to disagree with the terms I would imagine that she would have to foot any legal costs. The union allows members to collectively voice concerns making it a stronger argument then the lone voice - a company can replace one member of staff quite easily but to replace everyone would be quite difficult, basically she should have and should join a union.

Her position should be raised with a member of HR to try and get an understanding of the companies policy on contract changing.

Unions are a waste of space and I'm not here looking for advice on how to waste some money every month on union dues. Getting bullied into joining a union which happens in a lot of places doesn't say a lot about the union movement either. Unless you have something to add related to my original question then don't bother

JustMary wrote: »

Is she really expecting that her illness will last for that long?

TBH, if she's on paid sick leave for that long it sounds like a mightily good deal already. If I was the company, I'd be pushing for a medical retirement.

(Remember, many Irish companies don't offer ANY paid sick leave.)

Firstly it's a work related bullying/stress issue which they are seriously dragging their heels on. (4 months to carry out an investigation) and secondly what other irish companies do or don't offer is irrelevant, what I am on about here is whats in her contract.

Mrs OBumble

Head The Wall wrote: »

Firstly it's a work related bullying/stress issue which they are seriously dragging their heels on. (4 months to carry out an investigation) and secondly what other irish companies do or don't offer is irrelevant, what I am on about here is whats in her contract.

You've said before that "her contract is basic enough and doesn't mention anything in relation to other agreements".

Does it specifically mention six months paid sick leave? If so, it's a no-brainer, they cannot enforce it unless she signs (or perhaps behaves in a way that means's she's deemed to have accepted it).

But if it just says that sick leave is paid in accordance with company policies, then they can be changed at any time, irrespective of the union. Most unionised companies don't go changing policies like that outside the context of a contract negotiation. But policy changes would apply to all staff, no matter when they're made.

And you do need to consider whether her contract mentions medical retirement grounds and processes, or if they're just part of the policies too. You may not want to consider what other companies do, but I'm sure her employer will consider things like that.

Also, you consider unions to be useless, and in some respects I agree with you. However if she was a member, she could be asking a union staff member who knows the details of the contract, and would have access to a legal specialist. Because she's not member, she can't, and has to either pay for an employment lawyer (who won't know the background and contract already), or rely on the general advice that can be given here. IMHO, if union fees are nothing more than cheap employment lawyer insurance, they're worth it. YMMV.

Head The Wall

Thanks Justmary, her original contract specifically states 6 months sick leave so this is what we are hoping to hold them to. We have spoken to an employment lawyer also and we asked could he find out anything in relation to this scenario. He said he couldn't find anything similar in Case law

We don't want to be spending too much on lawyers so we are going to wait and see what the company does after three months. I was hoping someone would have come across this particular situation and was just looking for peace of mind but we'll have to wait and see. I'll update here as things progress

I just

Wishbone Ash

Head The Wall wrote: »

Firstly you may not be aware but not everyone was earning 1k a week during the boom

I don't recall mentioning anything about earnings of 1k per week.

she didn't receive any perks negotiated by the union in her time there

Perhaps not during her time there but changes in pay and conditions may have been introduced at various stages in the past.

The union in there came across as ineffective and useless according to other colleagues of hers

A trade union is only as strong as its members. Perhaps the members are 'useless and ineffective'. Union members who complain about their union are usually those members who are unwilling to spent any of their off time going to meetings, AGMs, selecting committee etc but then feel free to complain about their representatives. A bit like those who don't bother voting but then complain about the Government.

Secondly an agreement between a union and a company is exactly that

Companies who recognise trade unions engage in what is known as 'collective bargaining'. Outcomes of any negotiations are usually binding to all employees at the grade in which the negotiations apply. Any employee who is not a member of the union are usually included.

As my OH is not a member of a union the agreement is not relevant to her and her original contract would still stand.

If the trade union negotiated a wage rise or better annual leave, would your OH agree to remain on the old terms?

Or think of it the other way around. Suppose your OH was a member of a trade union but the company didn't recognise it. If they decided to cut wages by 10%, do you think your wife would be exempt because she was a union member?

Unless you have something to add related to my original question then don't bother

It's rather immature to ask questions on a public forum and then get into a huff because you don't like what you hear. If you only want to hear what suits you, why bother wasting our time?

Firstly it's a work related bullying/stress issue which they are seriously dragging their heels on.

Perhaps they can find no evidence of any bullying. What some people consider to be bullying is simply effective management.

krd

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Perhaps they can find no evidence of any bullying. What some people consider to be bullying is simply effective management.

Hardly very effective if your managing skills are making people sick to the point they can't come to work.

Upsetting people doesn't make them work harder or better.

There was fierce opposition to the banning of corporal punishment in Irish schools. That discipline would completely break down and education standards would collapse. None of this happened.

Cruelty doesn't work. It does cause absenteeism. It's childish.

Head The Wall

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's rather immature to ask questions on a public forum and then get into a huff because you don't like what you hear. If you only want to hear what suits you, why bother wasting our time?

Oh right so now I am in a huff because I want to keep the thread on topic and don't want to discuss why I should join a union. Thanks for your contribution

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Perhaps they can find no evidence of any bullying. What some people consider to be bullying is simply effective management.

Well maybe you consider taking 4 months to complete an investigation which involved meeting with 4 people and also not dealing with the majority of the issues in the complaint as effective management. Personally I wouldn't and neither has anyone else I've spoken too about it.

TheBigLebowski

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I don't recall mentioning anything about earnings of 1k per week.

Perhaps not during her time there but changes in pay and conditions may have been introduced at various stages in the past.

A trade union is only as strong as its members. Perhaps the members are 'useless and ineffective'. Union members who complain about their union are usually those members who are unwilling to spent any of their off time going to meetings, AGMs, selecting committee etc but then feel free to complain about their representatives. A bit like those who don't bother voting but then complain about the Government.

Companies who recognise trade unions engage in what is known as 'collective bargaining'. Outcomes of any negotiations are usually binding to all employees at the grade in which the negotiations apply. Any employee who is not a member of the union are usually included.

If the trade union negotiated a wage rise or better annual leave, would your OH agree to remain on the old terms?

Or think of it the other way around. Suppose your OH was a member of a trade union but the company didn't recognise it. If they decided to cut wages by 10%, do you think your wife would be exempt because she was a union member?

It's rather immature to ask questions on a public forum and then get into a huff because you don't like what you hear. If you only want to hear what suits you, why bother wasting our time?

Perhaps they can find no evidence of any bullying. What some people consider to be bullying is simply effective management.

You are making a lot of assumptions on a situation you know very little about, asking irrelevant questions and generally being quite unhelpful to the OP so I suggest you should give it a rest.

Shelflife

HTW
if it states specifically in her contract that she is entitled to six months sick pay then unless she has signed away that right she would be entitled to it.

however if the union agreement gained any improvement that your wife benefitted from then she may be deemed to have accepted the agreement by default.

i would find it hard to believe that the union would sign away this right without getting something in return.

however its my opinion that she is in a strong position on this matter.

I would however be worried that its taking so long to investigate a bullying claim, its one that most employers take very serious and the fact that your claim has being going on for 4 months is very strange esp as she is now off sick and its costing the company money.

i would be very careful regarding this as it doesnt sound right, keep records and tell your wife to have representation at all meetings.

Head The Wall

Shelflife wrote: »

HTW
if it states specifically in her contract that she is entitled to six months sick pay then unless she has signed away that right she would be entitled to it.

however if the union agreement gained any improvement that your wife benefitted from then she may be deemed to have accepted the agreement by default.

i would find it hard to believe that the union would sign away this right without getting something in return.

however its my opinion that she is in a strong position on this matter.

I would however be worried that its taking so long to investigate a bullying claim, its one that most employers take very serious and the fact that your claim has being going on for 4 months is very strange esp as she is now off sick and its costing the company money.

i would be very careful regarding this as it doesnt sound right, keep records and tell your wife to have representation at all meetings.

Hi Shelflife

Thanks again, the agreement was reached in return for no compulsory redundancies due to "supposed" difficult trading circumstances. (massive dividend paid out to parent company that year)

I'll have to wait and see what happens in relation to this, just thought someone may have come across this situation before. The rest of the advice noted, the next battle is for me to take part in a future meeting, I am not a union representative or work colleague