Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9653 Case Number: AD9626 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner Recommendation No. ST 399/95.
Recommendation:
The Court, having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties, upholds the Recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
It is clear to the Court that there is a need for structural
arrangements with regard to attendance of employee representatives
at meetings.
The Court considers that such arrangements should be negotiated
and agreed with all of the unions concerned.
Accordingly, the Court would suggest that the Council and the
unions representing employees in the Council seek to agree
arrangements suitable to the needs of both the employees and the
management.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9653 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2696
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner Recommendation No.
ST 399/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute refers to the Union seeking the "attendance at
all meetings with the Council of the shop steward and
assistant shop steward, Robinhood Environment depot". The
Union proposed that one shop steward for each fifty members
of the Union be present at the meetings. At the Rights
Commissioner's hearing on 17th January, 1996, the Union put
forward an 11 point proposal for shop steward facilities.
(details supplied to the Court)
The Council claims that the Union has pursued the issue on 2
footings:
(a) Time allocation to Shop Stewards for meetings with local
depot management, and
(b) Union representation at all meetings involving the
Council's Personnel Department.
The Council claims that the Union is seeking to have the shop
steward and assistant shop steward in attendance at all
meetings with the Council's Personnel Department. The
Council objects to this on the basis of an extract from the
Councils' Industrial Relations Procedural Document (IRPD):-
"2.3 The Council expects that the Union will be
represented by either a Trade Union Official or a Shop
Steward. In general, the Union Official will make
representations to the Personnel Department whereas the
Shop Steward will deal with local management. In
meetings with the Personnel Department, the Unions will
be represented by the appropriate Trade Union Officials
and Shop Stewards. While no more than one Shop Steward
per Union will normally attend a meeting, the Council
recognises that there may be occasions when more than
one Shop Steward per Union will have to be in attendance
when particular issues are being dealt with. In such
cases, prior arrangements will be made with the
Council".
The dispute was the subject of 2 Rights Commissioners
hearings, on 10th May, 1995 and 17th January, 1996. The
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:
I recommend that the Claims as presented fail as there
are no reasonable grounds advanced for departing from
long established practice in the area.
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on
2nd February, 1996, in accordance with Section 13(9),
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 4th March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The ratio of 2 shop stewards to every 100 workers is
reasonable, having regard to the size of the Council.
In Dublin Corporation, it is in the region of 2 shop
stewards for every 25 members. If shop steward or
assistant shop stewards have to attend meetings they are
replaced at work. Assistant/Shop stewards cannot
represent workers if they cannot attend meetings.
2. The Right Commissioner, at the hearing on 10th May,
1995, recommended that local level talks take place but
the Council made no progress until the hearing on 17th
January, 1996.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council's IRPD was introduced by the former Dublin
County Council and was endorsed by the County Council
Group of Unions, to which S.I.P.T.U. is affiliated. The
Council will honour all previous agreements and
procedures entered into by Dublin County Council.
2. The County Council Group of Unions has not indicated
that it is unhappy with any of the terms of the IRPD.
The Union is seeking to change the custom and practice
which has operated successfully by ignoring the
procedures contained in the IRPD.
3. The Council does not have sufficient staff to replace
Union representatives who are attending meetings. Any
increase in the number of Union representatives would
lead to other unions in the Council seeking similar
increases in representation.
DECISION:
The Court, having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties, upholds the Recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
It is clear to the Court that there is a need for structural
arrangements with regard to attendance of employee representatives
at meetings.
The Court considers that such arrangements should be negotiated
and agreed with all of the unions concerned.
Accordingly, the Court would suggest that the Council and the
unions representing employees in the Council seek to agree
arrangements suitable to the needs of both the employees and the
management.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st March, 1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman