FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : TOWNLINK CONSTRUCTION LTD - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement - Wages and Conditions of Employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in general building contracting work in the Dublin area Over the past year the number of Union members working for the Company has been reduced by 6 in total through redundancy. Two Workers were made redundant in September 2006 and this in turn led to a dispute over Registered Employment Agreement (REA) guidelines and procedures for settling grievances and disputes. The Company contends that the rules no longer apply to them due to the fact that they no longer employ brick or blocklayer on any of their sites. A meeting was requested by the Union with the Company to discuss the redundancies within the timeframe of the REA Disputes and Procedures. The Company declined to meet and this resulted in a formal complaint under Section 32.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and the Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 13th February, 2007, under Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th August, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Bricklayers employed by the Company are covered by the Registered Employment Agreements that apply to the Construction Industry.
2. The Company is in breach of the R.E.A. by not abiding by the rules of the Disputes Procedure.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no dispute involving Union members on any of their sites that the Company is aware of.
2. There is currently no work for bricklayers or blocklayers, therefore the Company has no option but to make redundancies.
DECISION:
The issue before the Court under Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 relates to the Union’s complaint that the Company failed to abide by the terms of Section 11 (a) of the Registered Employment Agreement (REA):
The Agreement was registered in the Register of Employment Agreements on 15th March 1967 and was varied for the twenty-fourth time by the Court under Section 28 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946, with effect from 17th November 2006.
The relevant provision of the Agreement is as follows:
- Clause 11.
PROCEDURE FOR SETTLING GRIEVANCES AND DISPUTES
If a trade dispute occurs between workers to whom this Agreement relates and their employers, no strike or lock-out, or other form of industrial action shall take place until the following procedures have been complied with and the Labour Court has issued a recommendation.
Category A Disputes
For the purposes of this Agreement questions concerning local matters or matters of an individual nature are regarded as category A disputes . Where these disputes arise, the following procedure shall be complied with :- (a) The grievance or dispute shall in the first instance be discussed between the parties concerned. If the dispute is not resolved within 3 days it may be referred to the trade union concerned and, where appropriate, the Construction Industry Federation (CIF). Notice in writing of the dispute shall be given by the individual concerned or his trade union to the CIF.
(b) If the dispute is not resolved within 7 days, or such longer period as may be mutually agreed, the issue may be referred to a Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal (CIDT).
(c) The CIDT will issue a decision within one week. The decision of the CIDT, where unanimous, shall be binding.
(d) Other decisions may be appealed to a Rights Commissioner, the Labour Relations Commission or the National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) as appropriate.
(e) If the issue remains unresolved, it shall be referred to the Labour Court for investigation and Recommendation.
- (a) The grievance or dispute shall in the first instance be discussed between the parties concerned. If the dispute is not resolved within 3 days it may be referred to the trade union concerned and, where appropriate, the Construction Industry Federation (CIF). Notice in writing of the dispute shall be given by the individual concerned or his trade union to the CIF.
The two workers concerned were made redundant in September 2006. The Union stated that as matters were not resolved locally, it wrote a letter on 2nd October 2006 to the Company requesting a meeting within the timeframe of the REA Disputes Procedures. It stated that the Company was in breach of the agreement when it stated that it would not meet with the Union. The Union wrote again to the Company on 9th February 2007 making a formal complaint under Section 32 following the Company’s failure to honour the procedures set out in section 11.
On 28th February 2007, the LRC wrote to the Company advising that BATU had referred the issues concerned to the CIDT.
The Company contended that prior to the Union’s letter of 2nd October 2006 it was not aware that any of the Union’s members had a grievance and consequently the issue had not been discussed between the parties in the first instances as required by Section 11(a) of the REA. However, despite this the Company agreed to attend the CIDT and a hearing took place on 8th May 2007.
Interpretation of the Agreement
Clause 11 of the Agreement is intended to provide for the orderly resolution of disputes, which arise between workers and employers. Based on the information supplied by both sides, the Court is of the view that there is a clear conflict of evidence as to whether those procedures were invoked and no direct evidence has been submitted to show that Section 11(a) – local discussion between the parties concerned – was invoked. Therefore, the Court is not in a position to decide whether or not the complaint herein is well founded. In any event the Court notes that the issues concerning the two workers who are encompassed by this claim forms part of the claim referred to the Court under section 26(1), following on from the CIDT hearing, under Section 11 of the REA, which took place on 8th May 2007.
Decision of the Court
In order to resolve the current impasse the Court recommends that both parties should ensure that all aspects of the REA are fully observed and understood in order to avoid any problems in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th September 2007______________________
JF.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.