Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87229 Case Number: LCR11173 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - POOA |
Claim, by the Association for the granting of time off or leave for the purposes of attending the Labour Court.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Company revert to the practice
that obtained prior to 1st December, 1986, with regard to
attendance at the Labour Court.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87229 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11173
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11173
Parties: BORD TELECOM EIREANN
and
POST OFFICE OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Association for the granting of time off or
leave for the purposes of attending the Labour Court.
Background:
2. On 1st December, 1986, the Association was informed of a
decision that leave in lieu or cost-of-substitution for attendance
at the Labour Court for members of the Association would not be
allowed, because the Company does not recognise the Association as
representing any grades within Telecom Eireann and therefore
attendance at the Court would have to be undertaken in the
worker's own time outside of official hours of work. The
immediate effect of this decision was the deferment of a Court
hearing between the parties, scheduled for 14th January, 1987, in
Drogheda, because certain workers could not attend due to their
work duties. On 21st March, 1987, the Association referred the
matter, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 27th April, 1987. Prior to the
investigation the Association gave an undertaking to accept the
recommendation of the Court.
Association's arguments:
3. (a) The Company is discriminating against certain members
of staff by not affording to them the same rights as
other workers. The recent decision to withdraw, from
Association members, an arrangement that all staff have
been afforded for many years, has not been applied to
other members of staff. On this basis the Association
see the decision as clear discrimination.
(b) The Company's decision is extraordinary in the light of
the continuing attempts to get staff to take leave of
absence for periods of 6 months and more and of the
decision to allow staff to take 100 days leave 'B' in
any one year. Other members of staff experience no
obstacle in getting leave for the purposes of attending
meetings of their union branch or of their local credit
union. However, Association members are being
frustrated in their lawful right to have their
grievances investigated by the Labour Court.
(c) The Association seeks that it's members be given the
same facilities as those afforded to staff who are
members of other unions. Failure to treat all staff
equally can only be seen as an attempt by the Company
to dictate to its staff as to their choice of union
affiliation and as to whom they should be represented
by at the Labour Court.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company takes the view that individuals should
arrange attendance at hearings of the Labour Court on
their own time. This would normally involve an
employee taking annual leave or leave on a
cost-of-substitution basis. The Company does not
consider that it has any obligation to compensate
individuals for attendances at the Labour Court either
during or outside their official hours of attendance.
(ii) The Company's position on this issue applies to all
staff. Special leave with pay for non full-time
representatives of recognised trade unions is only
allowable for meetings of the Conciliation Council, the
Arbitration Board, the Conciliation Council Staff Panel
or a meeting called by Management. For all other Union
purposes, including Annual Delegate Conferences,
I.C.T.U. Annual Delegate Conferences, National
Executive Committee meetings, leave is either at the
employee's own expense or the cost is recouped to the
Company by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Company revert to the practice
that obtained prior to 1st December, 1986, with regard to
attendance at the Labour Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens.
_______________________
13th May, 1987. Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.