Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87697 Case Number: LCR11485 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: NEW TATLERS HAIR SALON - and - IDATU |
Claim by the Union on behalf of eight workers for the implementation of an agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Company confirms, in writing, its
acceptance of the proposals set out in the Union's letter of 10th
October, 1986.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87697 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11485
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11485
PARTIES: NEW TATLERS HAIR SALON
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of eight workers for the
implementation of an agreement.
Background:
2. Following a meeting between the parties on 9th October, 1986,
the Union wrote to the Company to confirm the outcome of the
meeting and requesting their written agreement to implement the
matters discussed. These matters were as follows -
- That the staff will work from 8.30 to 5.30, from 9.00 to
6.00 or 9.30 to 6.30 with an hour break for lunch. Any
hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day will be paid
for in accordance with the terms of the Hairdressing
Joint Labour Committee.
- In the event of any shortcomings arising the staff will
be notified of same by management and given an
opportunity to improve. These communications will be
directed only to the worker concerned.
- Apprentices will be given all the necessary training to
facilitate their progress to full qualifications and
arrangements in this regard may be made directly with
the stylists concerned.
- Personal references, particularly to young female
workers, will cease.
- The Company will deduct Union dues, on a weekly basis,
from the Union's members and forward them to the Union
on a weekly, monthly or bi-monthly basis (whichever
suits the Company).
As no response was received from the Company to the Union's
communications, the Union referred the matter, on 23rd February,
1987, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. The
Company, however, declined to attend a conciliation conference and
on 3rd September, 1987, the Union referred the matter to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to a Court
hearing on 6th October, 1987, the Union agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
Union's argument:
3. During the course of the meeting held on 9th October,
1986, the Company indicated a willingness to implement
the matters discussed. Since then none of these
relatively minor matters have been implemented and the
Company has been unwilling to attend a conciliation
conference. The Company should now agree, in writing,
to their implementation.
Company argument:
4. The Company has already implemented all the proposals
agreed at the meeting on 9th October, 1986, (details
provided to the Court), except the proposal to collect
Union dues weekly, as this would have caused problems
with the computerised payroll system. The Company is
now using a new system and is now in a position to
collect Union dues.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Company confirms, in writing, its
acceptance of the proposals set out in the Union's letter of 10th
October, 1986.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th October, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman