FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MANLEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Status of Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf its members employed as bricklayers seeking confirmation that an agreement between the Company and the Union is a valid agreement.
A number of bricklayers worked for the Company at its sites in Beaumont and Knockmitten. When work was near completion and the bricklayers would be laid off, they went on unofficial strike.
An agreement between the Company and the Union was concluded on the 19th of November, 1998 following the industrial action by the bricklayers. This agreement contained a list of bricklayers who would be recalled for work in the future when and if required.
The Union states that a number of bricklayers not on the list were taken on by the Company in December, 1999, even though its members who were on the list were available for work but were not contacted. Therefore, it is the Union's view that the Company failed to honour the agreement.
The Company claims that the workers did not accept the November,19th agreement and that it subsequently made a financial settlement with them.
The Union maintains that the agreement still exists because it was not informed otherwise.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, held on the 13th of January, 2000. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd of May, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Work was, and continued to be, available for bricklayers.
2. In November and December, 1999, the Company took on bricklayers who had not previously worked for the Company and were not on the list. A number of employees on the list were available for work but were not contacted.
3. The agreement was concluded on the 19th of November, 1998 by both parties and the Union was not informed that this agreement had not been accepted.
4. The Union is seeking confirmation that the agreement is valid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time, there was no work available for bricklayers.
2. When work was available in November, 1999, the Company failed in its attempt to contact any of the employees on the list even though they had not accepted the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, in considering the written and oral submissions made by the parties, is faced with conflicting evidence in relation to the history of this case.
Given the issue that caused the original dispute, it is the Court's view that it was unlikely that payment alone, without the offer in the letter of 19th November, 1998, would have resolved this dispute.
The Court, having considered all aspects of this case, finds that the offer in the letter of 19th November, 1998, did form part of the settlement.
The Court, while noting the stipulations outlining the criteria to apply when recruiting from the list, recommends that the Company implement the agreement outlined in the letter of 19th November, 1998.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
15th May, 2000______________________
GB/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.