FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK CORPORATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Suspension of relief crew in the wheeled bin service.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the suspension without pay of seven members of the spare crew of the Corporation's wheeled bin service. The suspensions of refuse collection staff including the spare crew took place for four days in June, 1997. The matter was the subject of a Labour Court investigation in July, 1997, following which the Court issued LCR15585 and recommended as follows:-
"The Court does not recommend concession of payment in respect
of the days lost through suspension and calls on both parties to
adhere to the agreement made and use the procedures before any
other action is considered."
The Union is seeking compensation for loss of earnings. It argues that the suspension of the spare crew should not have been invoked on the basis that natural justice was not observed in the instruction given by the supervisor to the spare crew.
The Corporation's position is that the matter has already been dealt with in LCR15585.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 20th of May, 1998. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of June, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on the 23rd of September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The supervisor's instruction was extremely unreasonable. The spare crew were instructed to carry out duties which other employees had been suspended for refusing to perform.
2. The Corporation contrived and entrapped the workers into a volatile situation which was not of their making. The twelve suspended employees were still in the yard at the time of the instruction.
3. The workers were suspended on the spot, which is in breach of agreed procedures. These procedures were barely one month in existence at the time.
4. The workers did not refuse to carry out their normal duties.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The spare crew is part of Limerick Corporation's Wheeled Bin Refuse Collection Service. Its role is recognised in the Wheeled Bin Agreement, which provides equal financial incentives, for availability, to the crew with their regular Wheeled Bin Service colleagues.
2. Members of the spare crew engaged in unofficial industrial action and refused to give an undertaking that they would collect all bins in accordance with their normal work practice. All refuse collection employees had been warned that continuation of unofficial industrial action would lead to disciplinary action for serious misconduct. In the face of their refusals, the Corporation, was obliged to take whatever steps were necessary to bring an end to the disruption of an essential public service.
3. The spare crew were in breach of the Wheeled Bin Agreement and the Employee Relations Procedures, which had been signed only 5 weeks previously, and acted against the advice of their unions.
4. Neither the management or union side differentiated between the spare crew and their colleagues at the Labour Court Hearing on the 24th of June, 1997. The Court in its Recommendation did not differentiate between the spare crew and their colleagues. The Corporation, therefore, ask that the Court, in line with LCR15585 reject the claim put forward on behalf of the spare crew.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties finds that the issue was handled previously by the Labour Court and covered by LCR15585.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
5th October, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.