FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUN LAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged breach of Agreement relating to cleaning of gullies.
BACKGROUND:
2. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council provides a gully cleaning service in the County by direct labour through the provision of two gully-cleaning machines.
Due to a large number of complaints both directly to the Council and also to elected members the Council, in consideration of the estimates of expenses for 2006, directed that a provision of €50,000 be included for the engagement of a contractor to supplement the work carried out by direct labour in relation to the cleaning of the gullies.
The Union was advised of the Council's position at a meeting in March 2006. In September 2006 the Council put forward proposals with a view to bringing the matter to a conclusion. In return for acceptance of the proposals Management "will make provision in the 2007 Budget for the acquisition of an additional new gully-sucker".
According to the Union the then Branch Secretary dealing with the matter telephoned the Council and accepted the Council's offer. The Council, however, did not acquire a new machine or employ new staff. It did, however, engage a private contractor to clear the gullies. The Union is claiming breach of agreement.
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 19th October, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th February, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the County Council has not denied that the proposals put forward by them were accepted verbally, in a telephone call, by the then local Union Official.
2. The Union is seeking to have the agreement to provide a new gully-sucker machine implemented.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The County Council contends that there was no Union agreement to their proposal of 26th September 2006 and that therefore they are not in breach of such an agreement.
2. The County Council maintains that as there was no acceptance of their proposal the proper course of action was to proceed with the development and implementation of a strategy for the service going forward.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the information before it the Court cannot say whether or not a formal agreement came into existence between the parties in the terms of the Council's letter of 26th September 2006.
However, it is acknowledged by the Council that the Union did cooperate with the engagement of contractors, as was required by the Council. The proposal to acquire an additional new Gully-Sucker was intended to be in consideration of that cooperation.
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the parties continue to have discussions on the future and long term delivery of the service. The Court further recommends that the Council should provide a new Gully-Sucker in line with what was proposed in September 2006.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th February, 2008______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.