FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : STENA LINE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Filling of position in Freight Reservation Department.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns an alleged breach of an agreement by the Company in regard to the introduction of part-time staff in the Freight Reservation Department. In August, 2001, the Company advertised for a position in the Department after an employee (one of three full-time workers) had left. One worker applied for the position but, in the event, the Company decided to employ 2 permanent part-time workers on 25 hours each per week (full-time employees work a 35-hour week). The Union objected, claiming that the Company was in breach of a 1993 agreement which provided for negotiation and agreement on the introduction of part-time staff plus their terms and conditions.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th of February, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of February, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In May, 1993, the Company issued a letter to the Union which states:-
"I would confirm that any intention to recruit permanent part-time staff into the establishment of Stena Sealink Line in Ireland would firstly form the basis for discussions with yourself."
The Company has clearly breached the agreement in this case.
2. The Union's concern is that the Company may make similar unilateral decisions in the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company reported serious losses in 2000, and it is expected that 2001 will not see much improvement. As a result, the Company has had to take a number of cost-saving measures, including making changes to the Freight Reservation Department. It was decided that 2 part-time workers doing 50 hours per week between them would give greater flexibility and improved service than one worker doing 35 hours per week.
2. The Company does not believe that it has broken the 1993 agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Union has a valid cause of complaint in this case. It recommends that the Company should now reassure the Union that it will honour and work within all existing agreements, unless and until they are renegotiated or replaced.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th April, 2002______________________
CON/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.