FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged breach of Sustaining Progress (SP).
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 6th of November, 2003, the Union was involved in industrial action for 4 hours by the withdrawal of labour and the placing of pickets on all cleansing depots. The action was in support of workers in Oxigen Environmental which provides the "green bin" service to the Dublin local authorities. The workers are seeking Union representation. Oxigen is funded by Dublin City Council. The Council had threatened the withdrawal of the Benchmarking awards if the industrial action took place. There was disagreement between the parties as to how much notice had been given by the Union in regard to the stoppage. The main issue in dispute is whether the Union was in breach of clause 19.4 of Sustaining Progress (SP).
The Union does not believe that Clause 19.4 of SP applies in the present case, and it also believes that the Council was in breach of the 1997 Contractors' Agreement. The Council's view is that Oxigen is a private Company and that the Council cannot put pressure on it to engage in industrial relations.
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 2nd of December, 2003, pursuant to Clause 19.9 of SP and under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of December, 2003.
The parties agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue is in support of the workers in Oxigen. The Union clearly indicated to the Council that it would be engaging in industrial action. The stoppage on the 6th of November, 2003, was a token one and lasted only 4 hours.
2. The Union has asked Oxigen to attend the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court but it has refused to engage in any way in industrial relations.
3. Nothing in the National Agreement prohibits trade unions from taking industrial action in support of workers rights to secure trade union recognition.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union only gave the Council a few days notice that it would be taking industrial action. The Council was surprised that the Union served it with notice of the stoppage as the issue was with an outside party.
2. The issue had never been raised by the Union despite the fact that the Company has been operating for 3 years.
3. The Union is in breach of Clause 19.4 of Sustaining Progress as it made no effort to resolve the matter before proceeding with the industrial action. The Union has never documented in writing any problems it had with Oxigen.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute came before the Court by way of a complaint by Dublin City Council that SIPTU had acted in contravention of the agreement on Public Service Pay and related issues associated with Sustaining Progress – Social Partnership Agreement 2003-2005 by organising a half-day work stoppage in the city’s cleansing department in November, 2003. The complaint was referred to the Court pursuant to clause 19.9 of Sustaining Progress and under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The work stoppage occurred against the background of a long running dispute between the Union and the contractor engaged by the City Council concerning the contractor's refusal to recognise the Union. The Union was of the view that Dublin City Council had some degree of responsibility for the industrial relations practices of the contractor arising from an agreement concluded between the parties in 1997. The City Council contends that it is not responsible for the stance adopted by the contractor under the 1997 agreement or otherwise. The City Council further contended that the Union had not raised any specific issues with them in relation to the contractor in respect of any matters covered in the 1997 agreement.
Following the breakdown of discussions between the parties held at the Labour Relations Commission on 5th November, 2003, the Union proceeded with the work stoppage which lasted for a four hour period commencing at 8am on the 6th November, 2003.
Position of the Parties:
SIPTU contended that the stoppage did not contravene Sustaining Progress because it was not in respect of a matter covered by the Agreement. In that regard it referred to the third paragraph of clause 19.6 of the agreement which provides as follows: -
- “this Agreement precludes strikes or other forms of industrial action by trade unions, employees or employers in respect of matters covered by this Agreement, where the employer or trade union concerned is acting in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement.”
- “Many public services differ from services which are provided by the private sector in that they are essential services which the public cannot obtain from alternative sources. Providers of essential services and their staff, therefore, have a special responsibility to ensure that they have well developed communication channels and seek to resolve problems before they escalate into industrial disputes. If the problem cannot be resolved then it is agreed by all parties to take up all available disputes resolution mechanisms both statutory and non-statutory.”
Conclusions and Recommendation:
It appears to the Court that there is some confusion concerning the requirements of clauses 19.4 and 19.6 respectively of the Agreement.
Clause 19.6 is clearly not relevant to the work stoppage in question since the subject matter of the dispute is not covered by Sustaining Progress. However, clause 19.4 is plainly relevant. This clause requires the parties to refrain from any form of industrial action on any matter, whether covered by the Agreement or not, until all available disputes resolution machinery has been resorted to and exhausted.
In respect of the alleged breach now under investigation, it is clear that there was a dispute between the Union and the City Council in relation to the extent, if any, of the City Council’s responsibility for the contractors refusal to recognise the Union. In accordance with clause 19.4, that was a matter which should have been processed in accordance with normal procedure through the Labour Relations Commission and to the Labour Court before any form of industrial action was taken. Clearly that did not happen in this case.
The Court does, however, accept that the issue had become an emotive one and the action taken by SIPTU appears to have been more in the nature of a protest than a strike as that term is generally understood. The stoppage was of limited duration after which the workers resumed duty and substantially completed a normal full days workload. Moreover, the stoppage involved only one shift and it was fortuitous as to which employees were rostered on that shift and participated in the stoppage.
SIPTU did indicate an intention to take further action of a more substantial nature but following the reference of this matter to the Court no such action was proceeded with. The underlying dispute with the contractor has also been referred to the Court by the Union and an investigation has commenced in which the contractor is participating.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court believes that all parties should now accept the clarification of paragraph 19.4 as set out in this recommendation. They should meet as soon as is practical so as to confirm their understanding of the clause in question and to agree arrangements to ensure that it is complied with should a similar situation occur again. On that basis, the Court recommends that this matter should be regarded as resolved and that no further action be taken.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th January, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.