FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PORTOBELLO COLLEGE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The College is a privately owned third level institution which employs 80 staff. In 1998 a number of academic staff joined the Union and the Union wrote to the College requesting a meeting to discuss a number of matters pertaining to its members. Local negotiations were not successful and the issue of Union recognition was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in 1999. The hearing was adjourned on the understanding that the parties would be able to resolve the dispute internally. Further discussions took place at local level and under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. At a conciliation conference held in April, 2000, the parties agreed to enter into joint discussions presided over by the LRC's Advisory Development and Research Service. Agreement was not reached as both parties' draft agreements and proposals of the Advisory Service were rejected. On the 5th March, 2001, the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 17th May, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The College's employee handbook was rejected by the members as being clearly inadequate because it did not address their concerns on a number of issues.
2. The Union has been extremely patient and has used all reasonable efforts to persuade Management to concede the Union's right to represent its members. These workers are seeking professional representation on relevant matters affecting their terms and conditions of employment. The College is represented by IBEC.
3. Workers have a constitutional right to join the Union. It has tried to convince the College to take an enlightened and responsible approach on the issue, to no avail. In this era of Partnership approach the Union is extremely disappointed with the employer's position.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company handbook for staff, developed by the College, includes the full spectrum of employment issues and, particularly, sets out a framework for communication and discussion with staff including the establishment of a staff forum to ensure that "all employees have an appropriate channel to communicate their ideas". The staff forum, with nominations being sought from the academic staff, will allow direct communications between staff and management so that business issues, employee relations issues, concerns, and ideas for improvement can be raised and discussed openly and honestly. Solutions to issues will be brought from the forum and implemented in the business. The forum will positively allow and encourage employees to actively contribute to the decision making process.
2. The College is not anti-union but feels it can more adequately maintain a strong management employee relationship and can build and maintain structures to deal with the inevitable grievances and concerns that arise. Management feels that it would be in the best interest of everyone to allow the current situation to develop and continue.
3. The College's terms and conditions of employment compare favourably with other third level education providers, and in some respects it is above the norm. It is the College's intention to at least maintain this relative position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that this dispute is one to which the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Voluntary Disputes Resolution) (Declaration) Order 2000, S.I.145 of 2000, applies. It is further noted that the procedures set out in the Code of Practice have not been fully exhausted and that the dispute has not been referred to the Court pursuant to paragraph 5 of those procedures.
The original basis on which it was agreed to refer this dispute to the LRC's Advisory Service is set out in the letter from the Director of Conciliation to the parties dated 12th April, 2000. That letter clearly envisaged that the parties would agree the basis on which the Union would be recognised and an acceptable procedural agreement put in place.
The Court recommends that the parties now resume discussions through the Advisory Service of the LRC with a view to reaching agreement on those outstanding matters. Should the parties fail to agree by 30th June 2001, the dispute should be referred back to the Court in accordance with paragraph 5 of the procedures of the Code of Practice.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd May, 2001______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.