Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8734 Case Number: LCR11060 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH TELEPHONE RENTALS - and - AUEW(TASS) |
26th wage round.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and recommends that the Company should recognise the union
for negotiation purposes in future Wage Round and other issues.
The Court also recommends that the unions involved should
co-ordinate the processing of their claims in accordance with the
policy of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8734 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11060
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11060
Parties: IRISH TELEPHONE RENTALS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (TASS)
Subject:
1. 26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the installation and service of
private telephone systems. In the past the workers in the Company
have been represented by two different Unions - the Electrical
Trades Union (E.T.U.) on behalf of installation and service
employees and the Federated Workers Union of Ireland (F.W.U.I.) on
behalf of clerical employees. However, in 1979/80 the majority of
maintenance technicians transferred to the Amalgamated Union of
Engineering Workers A.U.E.W. (TASS) and this had become the
subject of an investigation and decision by the Disputes Committee
of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (copy supplied to the
Court). The Union was not party to the negotiations on the 25th
wage round in the Company.
This was unacceptable to the Union and the matter finally became
the subject of a Labour Court investigation and recommendation.
In its Recommendation on the matter (Labour Court Recommendation
No. 10,074 refers) the Court recommended as follows:
"Having regard to the sequence of negotiations with
other groups during this round, the Court considers
that further negotiations on the issue would be
pointless.
However, for future rounds, the Court recommends that
the Unions should co-ordinate the processing of their
claims in accordance with Irish Congress of Trade
Unions' policy and in its consideration of the claims
the Company should give due regard to the fact that it
must reach agreement with all the Unions."
3. The Company has again refused to enter into negotiations with
the Union on the 26th wage round on behalf of the workers it
represents and is seeking to apply the terms of the agreement for
this pay round, which it has concluded with the F.W.U.I. and the
E.T.U., to the Union's members. This was unacceptable to the
Union and it referred the matter to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 18th December, 1986. The Company declined an
invitation from the Court to attend a conciliation conference and
the matter was then referred by the Union to the Labour Court on
20th January, 1987, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 for investigation and recommendation. The
Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 26th February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Union has a number of outstanding claims with the
Company (details supplied to the Court) which it wished
to discuss under the 26th wage round. Many of these
issues are peculiar to the grade of workers which the
Union represents. All such discussions are being
denied to the Union on the basis that the Company has
reached agreement, in respect of the 26th wage round,
with the other two unions involved and the terms of
this agreement is being imposed on this Union's
members. This is unacceptable to the Union.
(ii) Labour Court Recommendation No. 10,074 is being
misinterpreted by the Company. That Recommendation was
accepted by the workers whom the Union represents on
the basis that the Union would seek an early meeting
with the Company to discuss the 26th wage round and
invite the other Unions involved to attend these
discussions, in accordance with the terms of the
Recommendation. The Union has done this and the
Company should now abide by the Recommendation by
entering into negotiations with the Union on the 26th
wage round.
(iii) It is accepted by the E.T.U. that maintenance
technicians are now represented by this Union. Also,
while the Company does not recognise the Union for the
purposes of negotiating the pay and conditions of its
members, it is prepared to recognise the Union in other
ways, such as the deduction of Union dues at source.
(iv) In all the circumstances the Company should now enter
into negotiations with the Union on the 26th wage round
to take account of claims relating to the Union
members' pay and working conditions.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Both the F.W.U.I. and the E.T.U. have represented
employees effectively for many years and the Company
does not feel that any purpose would be served by
negotiating with another union. Furthermore, if they
were to negotiate with A.U.E.W. (TASS), there is
nothing to prevent other employees splintering off into
other unions. Therefore, the Company believes that the
two unions are sufficient for the purpose of
negotiations and is not prepared to negotiate with
A.U.E.W. (TASS).
(b) The Company has already reached a 26th wage round
settlement with members of the E.T.U. and the F.W.U.I.
at local level, (details supplied to the Court) without
the involvement of union officials, but with their
approval. The terms of the settlement has also been
applied to A.U.E.W. (TASS) members. This is the second
consecutive occasion that the Company has dealt
directly with its staff, and is indicative of the
excellent working relationship within the Company,
which is recognised as being one of the best employers
in the country.
(c) Workers represented by A.U.E.W. (TASS) have also been
invited by the Company, as employees, to partake in the
next round of wage discussions so that they may have an
input. However, it has been made clear that should the
matter need to be referred back to a union, it will be
to the E.T.U. In this respect, maintenance workers are
represented by the E.T.U.
(d) In all the circumstances, the Company's position in
this case should be upheld.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and recommends that the Company should recognise the union
for negotiation purposes in future Wage Round and other issues.
The Court also recommends that the unions involved should
co-ordinate the processing of their claims in accordance with the
policy of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___________________________
Deputy Chairman.
16th April, 1987.
T.McC./J.C.