FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK AIRPORT AUTHORITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Lack of Facilities
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Cork Airport Authority and SIPTU in relation to the alleged lack of appropriate facilities at the new terminal building at Cork Airport. The Union is claiming that Security staff who currently have their own rest area should also be provided with same in the new terminal building.
Management's position is that it has provided much improved rest facilities in the new terminal for all employees but cannot provide separate facilities for any one group of workers.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 4th August, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th April, 2007 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The workers in question have enjoyed their own rest facilities at the old terminal. These facilities are essential as these workers meet to discuss aspects of their work that should not be discussed publically.
2 Management have failed in their duty of care to its workers in not providing adequate facilities in line with facilities previously used at the old terminal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management has provided rest facilities of a high standard. It is not in a position to provide separate facilities to any one group of workers.
2 The separate facilities that existed in the old terminal were provided only on the basis that there was not adequate space available.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court is not satisfied that a sustainable case exists on which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th_April 2007______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.