FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS - AND - NATIONAL BUS RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Union's application for negotiating rights on behalf of approximately 46 people employed by the Company as traffic supervisors. It claims that it was approached by a number of inspectors following its decision to establish supervisory branches in both Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that two trade unions-Services Industrial Professional Technical Union (SIPTU) and Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA)-hold sole negotiating rights for this grade of staff and that the ICTU group of unions are objecting to the NBRU's application for negotiating rights on behalf of inspectors.
Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 16th of November, 1999. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th of November, 1999, under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of January, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following its decision to establish supervisory branches in Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann, the Union was approached by a number of inspectors to implement its decision. It was emphasised that the Union's decision would not be processed unless a substantial number of inspectors sought membership.
2. The Union has taken forty-six supervisors into membership out of a total of one hundred and thirty-three, with a potential for another twelve to twenty recruits. Forty of these were previously members of the Union and were obliged to relinquish their membership on promotion. The inspectors concerned should be allowed join a union of their choice.
3. In the past when the NBRU sought negotiating rights on behalf of a small number of clerical workers, the Company argued that it would be necessary for a substantial number to join. The Union now has a substantial number of inspectors in membership.
4. The Company is unable to substantiate its argument that TSSA and SIPTU have sole negotiating rights. No such agreement exists.
5. The Union has a good working relationship with the ICTU group of unions and has sought to resolve the matter of negotiating rights in a logical manner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Company's view that two unions are more than adequate to represent 132 employees.
2. Any addition to this number will breach current agreements and cause serious difficulties in the future. It runs contrary to the spirit of the 1990 Industrial Relations Act.
3. No agreement exists on the transfer of supervisory employee members between ICTU unions and the NBRU.
4. This same issue, but in relation to clerical staff has previously been dealt with by the Labour Court. The Court recommended a way forward.
5. The Company requests the Court to reject the NBRU's claim for collective negotiating rights to traffic supervisory employees, especially in the absence of agreement from the ICTU group of unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that two other unions have established exclusive negotiation rights with the Company for the supervisory grade in respect of which NBRU is now seeking recognition. The Court also accepts that to increase the number of unions representing this grade might not be desirable from an industrial relations perspective and should not be encouraged. In these circumstances, the Court could not recommend that the Company unilaterally depart from the established arrangements.
Nonetheless, it is clear to the Court that the overriding reason for the Company's refusal to afford full recognition to NBRU lies in the objections raised by the other Unions to such a course. To that extent the dispute before the Court is essentially inter-union in character.
In these circumstances, the Court believes that the Union's claim for full recognition can only be met if agreement can be reached with the other Unions concerned on arrangements for joint representation of the grade in question.
The Court recommends that the Union should have discussions with those other Unions to explore the possibility of reaching such an agreement. In these discussions regard should be had to the number of supervisors in membership of the NBRU and the degree to which it is already recognised by the company, together with the normal criteria applicable to the resolution of inter-union disputes of this nature.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th February, 2000.______________________
FB/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.