FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Vacancy for Craft Instructor, Class 1 foreman.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the filling of a position for a Craft Instructor Class 1 foreman (foreman) at the Company's training centre in Inchicore.
The grade of foreman was introduced at a time when the training centre was dealing with a large number of apprentices. In January, 1993, following a productivity deal, the position of the foreman in the training centre was confirmed.
When the Manager at Inchicore retired on voluntary severance, the foreman was promoted to his position and, the Union claims, the position of foreman was eliminated. The Union contends that a worker is carrying out the duties of foreman and should be upgraded to the post.
The Union referred its case to the Labour Court on the 2nd of October, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not consult with the Union when it decided to eliminate the foreman's position. This is contrary to the Company/Union agreement. The Union referred the issue to the Labour Relations Commission but the Company refused to attend.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At one time, apprentices spent their first full year at the training centre. Since 1989, the number of apprentices has declined. The situation now is that apprentices no longer spend their first year at the centre, and supervision requirements no longer exist to the extent they once did. Management is currently putting in place an appropriate management structure which will cater for all the training needs of the Company. A new training manager has been appointed.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the subject matter of this dispute should have been discussed more fully between the parties before it was referred to the Court.
In that regard, it is noted that prior to referring the dispute to the Court under Section 20(1), the Union had referred it to the Labour Relations Commission for conciliation. The Company refused to attend at conciliation, notwithstanding the requirement to do so under their procedural agreement.
It is the recommendation of the Court that the current dispute be processed fully within the framework of the Company/Union agreement for the resolution of disputes. If it is necessary to refer the matter back to the Court, the parties should do so through the normal procedures prescribed by that agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th December, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.