FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001, AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004 PARTIES : FINLAY BRETON (IRELAND) LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Preliminary hearing in relation to a Referral from the Labour Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Readymix (N.I.) and employs a 300 strong workforce. It is concerned with the manufacture of bricks, blocks, aggregate, concrete pipes, kerbs, flags, roof tiles and structural precast concrete products.
The Company has a long history of engaging in collective bargaining with a recognised Trade Union. A formal Company/Union agreement was signed off in 1986 with the Federated Workers Union of Ireland. This agreement continues in force today and covers all hourly paid workers, including four carpenters, one of whom is a member of SIPTU.
The Union BATU represents three carpenters employed by the Company. In October 2005 the Union wrote to the Company requesting a meeting to discuss various issues on behalf of its members. At a meeting in November 2005 the Company stated that it would not recognise BATU as a representative for carpenters.
On the 24th November 2005 the Union referred the case to the Labour Relations Commission under the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (SI No.76 of 2004). The Company informed the Advisory Officer that it would not meet directly as it already had an agreement with SIPTU to represent carpenters employed by the Company.
Both sides agreed to refer the case to the Labour Court for investigation in accordance with Section 2 of the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 and Section 2 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th March, 2006.
DECISION:
The Company raised, as a preliminary issue, the question of the Court’s jurisdiction to hear BATU’s claims as, in its view, the preconditions for a hearing had not been met, specifically the Act states that: -
2 (a)‘‘ it is not the practice of the employer to engage in collective bargaining negotiations in respect of the grade, group or category of workers who are party to the trade dispute and the internal dispute resolution procedures (if any) normally used by the parties concerned have failed to resolve the dispute.”
The Company pointed out that a formal Company/Union agreement exists with SIPTU since 1986 (originally signed by the Company and the FWUI). This agreement continues in force today and covers all hourly paid workers, comprising of general operatives, steel fixers and carpenters, one of whom is a member of SIPTU. The Construction Branch of SIPTU represents these members. There is regular engagement between this Trade Union and the Company and this includes normally used industrial relations.
The Company therefore claims that: -
1. It does engage (with SIPTU) in collective bargaining negotiations in respect of the grade, group or category or workers who are party to the trade dispute; and
2. there are internal dispute resolution procedures which are normally used which have failed to resolve the dispute.
BATU argues that: -
1. Its members left SIPTU in 2004 to join BATU. They do not wish to be represented by SIPTU but by BATU in pursuing their claims against the Company.
2. SIPTU has confirmed in a letter to BATU dated 3rd February 2006 that: -
- “I wish to confirm that it is not the policy of this Union to organise Craft Workers outside of the General Operative grade in accordance with the rules of the I.C.T.U.”
- “I wish to confirm that it is not the policy of this Union to organise Craft Workers outside of the General Operative grade in accordance with the rules of the I.C.T.U.”
4. SIPTU allowed the three members concerned to transfer to BATU.
5. BATU has agreement from SIPTU that it may seek negotiation separately with the Company.
6. The provisions of Section 2(a) of the 2004 Act have therefore been fulfilled in that it is not the practice of this employer to engage in collective bargaining negotiations in respect of the grade, group or category of workers who are part to the dispute i.e. carpenters who are BATU members, and there are therefore no normally used internal dispute resolution procedures between this Company and BATU.
- The Court, having considered the matters, takes the view that when the three workers joined the Company, they were members of SIPTU and had the protection of the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Act of 2004, the only thing that has changed was that they have left SIPTU and now joined BATU.
The collective bargaining and dispute resolution procedures still exist. The workers have chosen to put themselves in a position whereby they no longer wish to use those existing procedures.
Under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the procedures are still available to the workers should they choose to use them. Accordingly, the conditions under Section 2(a) of the Act are not fulfilled and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the Union’s substantive claims.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
6th April, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.