FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : GENESIS GROUP - AND - AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Request by the Union for a Determination in relation to Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR18269.
BACKGROUND:
2. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 5th September, 2005.
DETERMINATION:
On 25th July, 2005 the Court issued Recommendation 18269 in a dispute between Amicus and Genesis Group which it had investigated pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, as amended. The Union subsequently sought a determination in the dispute, pursuant to Section 6 of the Act.
The Company was not represented at the hearing of the Union's application but did communicate with the Court in writing. The Court has taken full account of the position of the Company as set forth in its communications to the Court.
The Court is satisfied that the dispute has not been resolved and that it is expedient for it to make a determination. The Court is further satisfied that the Recommendation was not based on unsound or incomplete information. Accordingly, the determination must be in the same terms as the recommendation. However, for the purposes of clarity and having regard to the points made by the Company in its written communications to the Court, the Court wishes to state as follows;
1. The Act does not require a trade union or excepted body to disclose the names or other identifying details of its members as a condition precedent to the making of an application under Sections 2 or 6 of the Act. The Union has, nonetheless, indicated to the Court that it is willing to disclose to the Company the identity of its members in whose interests this application was brought. The Court intended its Recommendation to apply to those employees of the Company who are members of the Union. The Court intends this Determination to have like effect. The identification of those members is a matter between the Union and the Company.
2. The Act precludes the Court from making a Recommendation on arrangements for collective bargaining. The Court did not make any such recommendation. The Court is not precluded from making recommendations for the representation of individuals in matters of difference with their employer not involving collective bargaining. In so far as the Union's claim for "recognition" sought facilities for collective bargaining, it was rejected by the Court. However, in so far as it involved the processing of individual grievances and disciplinary matters, the Court did make a recommendation.
In light of the foregoing and having regard to all relevant considerations the Court determines as follows:
The Court determines that the employer put in place a disciplinary and grievance procedure which conforms with the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000) and in particular that appropriate provision be made for representation by an employee representative as defined by paragraph 4.4 of the Code.
Any dispute on this issue should be processed through the procedures provided for by Section 43(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
Payment of Sustaining Progress.
In the absence of any other reasonable system of pay adjustment, the Court is of the view that the Company should apply the terms of National Wage Agreements. The Court has, however, taken into account the financial circumstances of the Company, as disclosed in its accounts. It also notes that the Union has not provided any information in rebuttal of the Company's contention that its rates are in line with or in excess of industry norms.
In all the circumstances the Court determines that the pay terms associated with the second part of Sustaining Progress should now be paid but from a current date. Accordingly, the Court recommends the 1st and 2nd phase of the agreement (total of 3%) be paid with effect from 1st July, 2005 and that the remaining phase be paid 6 months thereafter.
Implementation.
Save where it is otherwise provided, the terms of this Determination should be implemented within one month form the date on which it is issued, with retrospective effect to the date envisaged in the original Recommendation (24th August, 2004).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22th September,2005______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.