Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94358 Case Number: LCR14574 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning Union Recognition.
Recommendation:
The case before the Court is a claim for recognition by the Union
in respect of Harbour Police in Dublin Port. The Court has
considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral
and written submissions. The Court notes that the Port and Docks
Board is prepared to give recognition to the Union subject to
agreement being reached on the recognition, representation and
industrial relations procedures agreement.
The major issue in dispute between the parties is Clause 1.1 of
that agreement including the commitment not to engage in
industrial action.
In the light of the legal limitations placed on the Harbour Police
and recognising that the Harbour Bill is currently under
consideration, the Court is of the view that pending the
introduction of this new legislation the parties should finalise
agreement on the other clauses of the procedural agreement and
should accept Clause 1.1 as written. The agreement including this
clause to be reviewed in the light of the provisions of the new
legislation when enacted..
On acceptance of this recommendation the Union should be
recognised as already proposed by the Board in respect of the
Harbour Police.
If the climate of industrial relations is to be developed and
improved it is imperative that both parties ensure that all
disputes are dealt with in accordance with the procedures laid
down in the agreement and in an expeditious and meaningful way.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94358 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14574
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Union Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In April, 1981 the Court was asked to investigate a
dispute regarding recognition on the behalf of the Union
to represent and negotiate on behalf of Harbour
Policemen. LCR6416 which issued on 21st May, 1981,
recommended as follows:-
" The Labour Court is not the competent body to
determine whether or not the Board's interpretation
of the relevant legislation is correct. The Court
is, however, satisfied that the Board took its
decision only after obtaining legal advice. So
long as the Board continues to hold the view that a
legal prohibition, against their police joining a
Trade Union, exists the Court does not recommend
that it should concede the Union's claim".
2. At a Labour Court investigation of 30th March, 1992, the
Court was again asked to make a recommendation on the
issue of union recognition. The Court suggested
that both sides make a submission to the Minister for
Justice on the matter. No recommendation was issued.
3. The Court's suggestion was pursued and the parties were
referred to the Department of the Marine. On 30th
March, 1993, the Department of the Marine advised the
Board of the Attorney General's view on the matter. It
was the Attorney General's view that the Board had the
authority to give consent for the Harbour Police to have
associated status with a Union and that it should take
into account the "provisions of the law which impose
limitations on policemen".
4. On 29th September, 1993, the Board's Assistant Personnel
Manager wrote to the Union setting out the circumstances
under which the Board would be prepared to recommend the
Harbour Police having associated status with a Union.
One of the Clauses was as follows:
" No industrial action either on their own behalf or
in sympathetic support of any other group of
employees or individuals".
This Clause is unacceptable to the Union.
5. Discussions between the parties took place and a draft
agreement between the Board and the Union "regarding
recognition, representation and industrial relations
procedures for Harbour Police personnel" was finalised.
Clause 1.1 of the draft agreement dealt with a no strike
clause and this was unacceptable to the Union. The
Board's position was that the Clause was essential to
comply with the Attorney General's advice. It further
added that the entire issue was likely to be resolved in
a new Harbour Bill.
6. The Union wrote to the Court on 20th June, 1994 seeking
an investigation to assist in resolving the difficulty
of Clause 1.1 of the draft agreement. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 15th September, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Board was informed by the Attorney General that it
is the appropriate body to give consent to the Harbour
Police Representative Body to have associate status with
the Union. Despite this clear interpretation from the
State's highest law officer, the Board is attempting to
force the workers into a no strike clause which deprives
them of their rights under the Industrial Relations
Acts.
2. The Union is prepared to take a sensitive position in
the event of a strike and accepts that the workers
should not go on strike in sympathy with other workers.
However, the workers cannot relinquish their rights
under the constitution and the various industrial
relations acts.
3. The Board is attempting to have the Garda Siochana
conditions of employment applied to the Harbour Police.
If this were to happen the Union would claim that the
Garda's terms and conditions should apply. The draft
agreement is acceptable with the exception of Clause
1.1.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the light of the advice of the Attorney General and
the Board's own legal advice, Clause 1.1. which deals
with a no strike clause has to be acceptable before any
agreement can be reached on associate membership of a
trade union. Legally the Board has no room for
negotiation and Clause 1.1 must be accepted before
associate membership of a Union can be granted.
2. The Board has at all times behaved in a fair and
reasonable manner and made every effort to comply with
the spirit of the suggestion put forward by the Court in
1992. The proposed agreement takes into account the
advice given by the Attorney General that the Board
should "take into account the provisions of the law
which impose limitations on policemen".
3. The conditions outlined in Clause 1.1 of the proposed
agreement are no different than there which would be
imposed on policemen in similar circumstances and are
the only conditions which could apply.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court is a claim for recognition by the Union
in respect of Harbour Police in Dublin Port. The Court has
considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral
and written submissions. The Court notes that the Port and Docks
Board is prepared to give recognition to the Union subject to
agreement being reached on the recognition, representation and
industrial relations procedures agreement.
The major issue in dispute between the parties is Clause 1.1 of
that agreement including the commitment not to engage in
industrial action.
In the light of the legal limitations placed on the Harbour Police
and recognising that the Harbour Bill is currently under
consideration, the Court is of the view that pending the
introduction of this new legislation the parties should finalise
agreement on the other clauses of the procedural agreement and
should accept Clause 1.1 as written. The agreement including this
clause to be reviewed in the light of the provisions of the new
legislation when enacted..
On acceptance of this recommendation the Union should be
recognised as already proposed by the Board in respect of the
Harbour Police.
If the climate of industrial relations is to be developed and
improved it is imperative that both parties ensure that all
disputes are dealt with in accordance with the procedures laid
down in the agreement and in an expeditious and meaningful way.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th October, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.