FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CHUBB FIRE - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Company - Union Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. Chubb Fire is part of Chubb Ireland , a subsidiary of U.T.C (U.S) and is engaged in the business of the installation and maintenance of sophisticated fire detection and protection systems. The Union's claim before the Court concerns a dispute between the Union and the Company in relation to an agreement on pay and conditions of employment relative to the Fire Division. The Union contends that an official agreement, which was concluded in 1982 is the only agreement in place and a 1999 agreement, which resulted from discussions between the Company and the workers was not negotiated with the Union and concluded at official level and is therefore not a valid agreement. The Company rejects the Union’s claim and contends that the agreement is valid and was negotiated with the employees and signed by the acting Shop Steward.
- The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd April, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th June, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreement between the Company and the Union, dated September 1982, is the only extant agreement. The document that the Company produced in December 1999, has no standing as an amendment or alteration to the original agreement.
2. The Union had no official Shop Steward in the Fire Division at this time, nor was there any official input from the Union. Even if the individual had been officially elected Shop Steward at this time he would not have the authority to formalise any agreement with the Company on behalf of the Unionunder Union Rule 244 which states:" The Shop Steward will be under the jurisdiction of his/her Branch. He/She shall keep his/her Branch Committee well informed of all the events affecting the Union and it's members that occur in his/her shop. He/She shall have no authority to formalise any agreements with employers nor to make any commitments whatsoever on behalf of the Union".
3. The Union is requesting the Court to make a Recommendation that the 1982 agreement between the Company and the Union is the only extant agreement and that the Company should adhere to it's contents and honour same.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1999 agreement was signed by an " Acting Shop Steward". The Company was of the belief that he was acting in a Shop Steward capacity and the same person is still a recognised Shop Steward today. The agreement reached in 1999 was voted on by all staff at the time and the Terms and Conditions as set out was agreed by all.
2. The Company has applied an agreement negotiated with workers and which was accepted by ballot vote and has been in situ without difficulty for a number of years. The Union is now seeking to revert to an old agreement on the basis that in their opinion a full time Union Official was not present at the time. It is the Company's contention that this is a matter concerning the Trade Union and their members and should not be to the detriment of the business.
3. To introduce an agreement now after 23 years that significantly changes the Terms and Conditions of employment of all engineers is not practicable or fair given that all but 2 of 16 engineers currently employed by the Company, have been employed since 1999. The cost implication of re-introducing the 1982 agreement would have the affect of increasing overhead liabilities and this is simply unsustainable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Th Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submission. The Court notes that the December 1999 agreement has been in practice to both sides satisfaction for a period of four years. Based on the custom and practice established by the 1999 agreement, the Court concludes that it is a valid working agreement between the parties.
The Court recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th June, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.