Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90332 Case Number: LCR13066 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HAZEL HALL NURSING HOME - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Union recognition.
Recommendation:
4. The Court is given to understand that the suggestions put
forward as a basis for reconciling the differences between the
parties have not been successful and that a recommendation is
requested in the matter by the Union.
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties and
subsequent correspondence from the F.I.E. and the Union recommend
that the Management recognise the Union in respect of their
members.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90332 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13066
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: HAZEL HALL NURSING HOME
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Home was taken over by new management in May 1989. In
January, 1990, the Union wrote to Management, advising that some
of the staff had joined its membership and sought a meeting
regarding wages and conditions etc. In addition, it advised that
new contracts of employment that had been given to staff members
would not be signed until they had been negotiated with the Union.
Because of the unavailability of the full Management team, a
meeting was not held until the 15th March. A week previously (on
the 10th March) two part-time employees who worked in a cleaning
capacity at weekends were laid-off and the rosters amended
(details supplied to the Court). The issue of the lay-offs was
raised at the meeting of the 15th March. The Union advised
Management that unless the workers concerned were re-instated it
would serve official strike notice in pursuance of same.
Management, however, was not willing to agree to this and no
agreement was reached. The meeting had been arranged to discuss
union recognition but because of the dispute regarding the
lay-offs, this issue was not dealt with at that time. In the
absence of agreement on the lay-offs the Union served strike
notice to expire on the 9th April, 1990. On the 4th April the
conciliation service of the Labour Court invited both sides to
attend a conciliation conference in an effort to reach agreement.
The Union agreed to defer taking strike action pending the outcome
of the conciliation discussions. Two conciliation conferences
were held (11th and 20th April) but no agreement was reached. The
Industrial Relations Officer requested the Union to further defer
taking industrial action pending an early hearing of the dispute
by the Labour Court. The Union agreed to defer action and
Management agreed to join the referral to a full investigation of
the dispute by the Labour Court. A Court hearing was held on the
24th April, 1990. The Court in its recommendation LCR12814 stated
inter alia:
"The Court is concerned at the deterioration in industrial
relations in the Home which appears to have commenced in
January, 1990. In these circumstances the Court feels it is
imperative that a period of normality is restored during which
negotiations on the many points which have arisen can take
place starting with the question (not specifically before the
Court) of Union recognition...."
3. The Union subsequently sought local discussions on the
question of recognition but Management was not prepared to meet
the Union. On the 1st June, 1990, the Union referred the question
of recognition to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969, agreeing to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 11th
July, 1990. The Company declined an invitation to attend. The
Court subsequently wrote to both sides urging them to meet to
discuss any issues that they might wish to raise. This approach,
however, did not result in any meeting taking place. In the
absence of any progress, the Court decided to issue a
recommendation on the matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court is given to understand that the suggestions put
forward as a basis for reconciling the differences between the
parties have not been successful and that a recommendation is
requested in the matter by the Union.
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties and
subsequent correspondence from the F.I.E. and the Union recommend
that the Management recognise the Union in respect of their
members.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
__31st__October,__1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman