Employee right to representation of

The tripartite EU agency providing knowledge to assist in the development of better social, employment and work-related policies. Employee representation may be defined as the right of employees to seek a union or individual to represent them for the purpose of negotiating with management on such issues as wages, hours, benefits and working conditions. Read more. In the workplace, workers may be represented by trade union and through works councils — or similar structures elected by all employees. EU law has established rights and obligations for employees and their representatives to be informed and consulted via a set of directives that provide for the information and consultation of the workers, at both national and international level. The sections below provide access to a range of publications, data and ongoing work on this topic.

We are searching data for your request:

Employee right to representation of

Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Content:

• A Public Employee And The Right to Representation
• Do I have a right to representation during performance feedback sessions?
• Representation at mediation
• Rights to Representation
• Right of Individual Representation Restored Under EERA
• Weingarten Rights: Your Right to Representation
• NHO - The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise
• Duties and Responsibilities of Employee Representatives

WATCH RELATED VIDEO: Employee Rights and Responsibilities

A Public Employee And The Right to Representation

In brief, the employee in McKelvey had been the subject of an investigation concerning allegedly irregular purchases of fuel using a company card, following which his employer proposed to commence disciplinary proceedings.

The employee had previously obtained an injunction before the High Court preventing the disciplinary process from progressing until such time as he was entitled to be legally represented at any disciplinary hearing. This injunction was later discharged by the Court of Appeal which allowed an appeal on which, see our previous briefing here. As such, merely because it may be possible to locate a lawyer who might bring some additional advantage to the employee does not lead to a process being unfair and instead the essential question is whether the absence of legal representation would leave the employee without adequate representation.

Clarke CJ considered certain criteria identified in previous case law of the Court and indicated that, while these criteria did not need to be separately established, they formed part of an overall evaluation regarding whether legal representation was necessary to render a process fair.

The criteria are uncontroversial and include the seriousness of the charge; the potential penalty; whether points of law are likely to arise; the capacity of the employee to present his own case; the need for speed in making the adjudication; procedural difficulty; and the need for fairness between the parties.

In this respect, mere speculation about issues which might arise in the course of a hearing would not justify a decision that legal representation is necessary. In applying these principles to the case at bar, Clarke CJ stated, tellingly, that there was nothing in the allegations, the likely evidence or the process likely to be followed which would place the disciplinary proceedings against the employee beyond the competence of an experienced trade union official.

The judgment leaves open the possibility that McKelvey may become entitled to legal representation at some later stage if the situation demanded it.

It is worthy of note that Clarke CJ made clear that the decision in McKelvey did not address whether or how an employer might exclude by contract or policy any entitlement to legal representation in an employment law context.

However, given the emphasis of the judgment on the principles of constitutional justice, it is a brave employer who would seek to rely upon any such language in attempting to exclude legal representation where the facts reach the exceptionality threshold outlined in McKelvey. Of course, on the flipside, there is nothing in the McKelvey case to prevent an employer making an express provision for legal representation in workplace disputes, nor from exercising its discretion to allow same in any event.

Employers will welcome this recent judgment, particularly its underlying assumption that it is wholly undesirable to involve legal representation in disciplinary procedures unless these are mandated by constitutional justice. There is some reassurance in particular for employers with a unionised workforce that in the overwhelming majority of cases, an experienced trade union representative is sufficient to ensure a fair process.

While the overall assessment of whether legal representation is necessary for there to be a fair process remains a fact-sensitive one, it is significant that very serious charges and the very real potential for dismissal and reputational damage in this case did not satisfy this test. The broader question, however, of the circumstances in which an employee may have a legal right to cross-examine witnesses in the course of workplace disciplinary issues, remains to be clarified.

This document has been prepared by McCann FitzGerald LLP for general guidance only and should not be regarded as a substitute for professional advice. Such advice should always be taken before acting on any of the matters discussed. Key contacts. Mary Brassil Partner. Stephen Holst Partner. Show More. Are you looking for someone or something in particular?

Share this post Select how you would like to share using the options below.

Do I have a right to representation during performance feedback sessions?

From 6 January to 3 February , the European Commission is holding a consultation on the right to collective representation for self-employed workers. Open to allcomers, the aim of this initiative is to provide legal guarantees to any agreements concluded between self-employed workers and the platforms they work for. The contributions from self-employed workers, social partners, SMEs and national regulatory bodies will be made public with a view to adopting new legislation in this field. The outcome of this consultation is expected to benefit platform workers in particular, for instance Uber drivers or Deliveroo couriers.

Representation at mediation

South African Labour Law is a fine example of legislation which protects two parties in this case, the employer and the employee equally. This ensures a harmonious and productive relationship in the workplace, where all parties know where they stand. This delicate balance becomes slightly complicated when Trade Unions, purporting to act in the interest of workers, get involved. An example of this is the potential involvement of trade unions in a disciplinary hearing. Under South African labour law legislation, an employee has a fundamental right to be represented in a disciplinary hearing, should he or she want representation. However, the person who represents the employee cannot be a lawyer or a person who acts in his or her capacity as a legal professional. Once an employee has been notified of a disciplinary hearing, he or she must be allowed a reasonable period to prepare for said hearing. This right includes being allowed to consult with a trade union representative before the hearing.

Rights to Representation

Act 10 limited mandatory subjects of bargaining to base wages and eliminated fair share agreements. Winnebago County, Dec. Consequently, the limits on collective bargaining imposed by Act 10 do not affect this employee right. Madison Metropolitan School District, Dec.

Right of Individual Representation Restored Under EERA

No, employees do not have a right to representation during performance feedback sessions. This includes annual appraisals and mid-term performance reviews. Often employees want a union representative at these sessions, especially when they expect negative feedback. While it's an understandable desire, it is not an employee right. Employees are entitled union representation in two types of meetings: investigatory interviews and formal discussions.

Weingarten Rights: Your Right to Representation

An employee does not have an automatic right to legal representation during a disciplinary process. However, that right may arise if there are multiple legal issues to be addressed, the facts are complex, there are complicated procedural processed and the employee is unable to adequately present their own defence. That been said, there is nothing to preclude an employee from privately availing of the services of a solicitor to guide them through an investigation or disciplinary process. A case recently came before the Workplace Relations Commission which examines the right of an employee to legal representation during an investigation and disciplinary process. This case involved a civil servant who was dismissed for purchasing and later selling contraband cigarettes from Poland, in Ireland. The employer submitted that the sale of contraband cigarettes amounted to serious misconduct as defined in their disciplinary code and was therefore a fair basis for dismissal. The employee brought about the complaint, in part, on the basis of procedural fairness in that he claimed he was denied access to his solicitor throughout the investigation and disciplinary process. At the outset, the employer argued that, in any event, there was no automatic entitlement to legal representation.

NHO - The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise

In brief, the employee in McKelvey had been the subject of an investigation concerning allegedly irregular purchases of fuel using a company card, following which his employer proposed to commence disciplinary proceedings. The employee had previously obtained an injunction before the High Court preventing the disciplinary process from progressing until such time as he was entitled to be legally represented at any disciplinary hearing. This injunction was later discharged by the Court of Appeal which allowed an appeal on which, see our previous briefing here. As such, merely because it may be possible to locate a lawyer who might bring some additional advantage to the employee does not lead to a process being unfair and instead the essential question is whether the absence of legal representation would leave the employee without adequate representation.

Duties and Responsibilities of Employee Representatives

We use cookies to collect and analyse information on site performance and usage to improve and customise your experience, where applicable. View our Cookies Policy. Click Accept and continue to use our website or Manage to review and update your preferences. The following cookies are necessary to allow you to access the website including login, move between pages and to receive services which you have requested. They include cookies to store analytics and track user interactions so we can personalise content to best suit your interests and needs. These cookies allow the Website to remember choices you make and provide enhanced and more personal features, such as twitter feed and online chat.

Worker representation on corporate boards of directors , also known as board-level employee representation BLER [1] refers to the right of workers to vote for representatives on a board of directors in corporate law. In , a majority of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , and a majority of countries in the European Union , had some form of law guaranteeing the right of workers to vote for board representation. Together with a right to elect work councils , this is often called " codetermination ". The following is a list of 35 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and their practices of worker representation on corporate boards of directors. Some of the first codetermination laws emerged in universities in the UK during the 19th century, such as the Oxford University Act and the Cambridge University Act

I - Right to Representation at a Hearing A - Federal Courts Federal court issues an injunction preventing management from introducing a use-of-force incident report in the disciplinary hearing. Superiors required the involved officer to complete the report without the presence of the union attorney. Court put compelled reports in the same category as formalized IA interviews.