FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PORTOBELLO COLLEGE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute was the subject of a Labour Court hearing on the 17th of May, 2001, LCR 16815 refers. The Court decided to refer the dispute back to the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission to try and reach agreement on the outstanding issues in dispute in accordance with the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Voluntary Disputes Resolution) (Declaration) Order 2000, S.I. 145 of 2000.
The Industrial Relations Officer (IRO) met with the parties between June, 2000, and June, 2001, but no agreement was reached.
The Union argues that its members wish to be professionally represented. It claims that management has continually frustrated its efforts to achieve Union recognition. It wants management to address the following issues:-
(a) Contracts of Employment; (b) Consultation Procedures; (c) Security of Employment; (d) Grievance Procedures; (e) Holiday Entitlements; (f) Pensions; (g) Progression and the Criteria for the payment of Bonus.
Management claims that it has set up a Staff Forum which will provide a high level of input from staff into decisions affecting the future business of the College. It states that the best interests of all would be served by allowing this Forum to continue.
The dispute was referred back to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 6th of November, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has been patient and has used all reasonable efforts to get management to concede the Union's right to represent its members. The College itself is represented by IBEC.
2. It has been very difficult, in the face of the intransigence of management, to make progress through the Voluntary Disputes Resolution Procedure.
3. It is almost three years since the members joined the Union. Management has failed to address their concerns. They want to be professionally represented.
4. The College continues to refuse recognition of this Union. It is an overt demonstration of the disrespect with which it has treated their staff, the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court, and the procedures for Voluntary Disputes Resolution.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. 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.
2. In September, 2001, the College established a Staff Forum. It is management's intention that this forum will provide a high level of input from staff into decisions affecting the future business of the College.
3. The Forum will allow direct communications between staff and management so that business issues, employee relations issues and concerns and ideas for improvement can be raised and discussed openly and honestly.
4. The Court is asked to be mindful of the fact that the College wishes to carry on relations with its staff in the manner in which it is currently promoting and feel the best interest of all would be served by allowing this to continue.
RECOMMENDATION:
This case was referred to the Court by the Labour Relations Commission following a protracted period during which various procedures, including those set out in the Code of Practice on Voluntary Disputes Relations (Declaration) Order 2000, S.I. 145 were utilised, cumulating in a hearing by the Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 in May of this year.
The original basis on which it was agreed to refer this dispute to the Labour Relations 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 and mechanism of Union recognition and the drawing up of an acceptable procedural agreement on the basis of joint ownership.
Both parties had agreed to the dispute being dealt with under the Code of Practice. This process failed to achieve these objectives. Therefore, following a cooling off period, the outstanding issues have been referred under Section 26 to the Court. Paragraph 5 of the Code of Practice states:
"In the event of issues unresolved after the cooling-off period the Labour Relations Commission shall make a written report to the Labour Court on the situation. The Labour Court shall consider the position of the employer and the union shall issue recommendations on outstanding matters".
On consideration of the submissions of both sides, the Court recommends that the College should recognise the Union for those employees in membership and should discuss implementation of an agreement with the Union.
The Court notes the employer's proposal to have a Staff Forum operate within the College. This should not present any problem to either party and does not in any way conflict with the Court's recommendation on the Union's claim to represent its members.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd November, 2001______________________
LW/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.