FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : L M DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement - Wages and Conditions of Employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The original complaint under Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th October, 2006 and the core substantive issue was settled between the parties to both the Company's and Union's satisfaction after a meeting with the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal (CIDT). The current issue was later raised by the Union that the Company had failed to meet with the Union within the time frame as laid out, alleging a breach of the Registered Employment Agreement's Disputes Procedure Section 11 (Procedures for Settling Grievances and Disputes). A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th February, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company repeatedly failed to engage with the Union as requested.
2. The Company did not comply with the REA Disputes Procedure within the specified time frame.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When requested the Union failed to provide a list of their current membership employed by the Company.
2. The Company was not aware of any dispute involving any of their Employees and therefore did not see any reason to meet or engage with the Union.
DECISION:
This matter came before the Court by way of a complaint by the Building and Allied Trades Union that LM Developments Limited (the Company) contravened Section 11 (Procedures for Settling Grievances and Disputes) of the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Wages and Conditions of Employment), as varied (the Agreement). The complaint was referred pursuant to Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
The material facts are as follows:-
- 1. A dispute developed between the Union and the Company concerning the conditions under which members of the Union were employed.
2. In or about September 2006 the Union sought a meeting with the Company to discuss the matters in dispute.
3. Correspondence ensued between the parties in which the Company sought identifying details of the members on whose behalf the Union purported to act.
4. The dispute was eventually considered by the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal on 30th January, 2007.
5. The Tribunal recommended that the parties engage in discussions with a view to resolving the issues in dispute.
6. Discussions did take place between the parties and all matters in dispute were resolved.
Conclusion.
There was a technical breach of the Agreement in this case. The Court is also of the view that the difficulties which arose in arranging a meeting might have been avoided if the Union had adopted a more forthright response to the queries raised by the Company.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court does not see any requirement for any further findings and does not propose to make any Order.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th February, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.