FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. A Union claim that the Company have not complied with an agreement entitled "Agreement for Resolving Problems arising between Management and staff of Dunnes Stores" 1996.
BACKGROUND:
2. The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Mandate Trade Union on behalf of its 4,000 members employed nationwide in Dunnes Stores, that the employer has failed to honour its obligations under the terms of a national collective agreement freely entered into between the parties (Mandate Trade Union and Dunnes Stores) 1996.
During 2006 Mandate carried out a strategic review and planning process within all the major employments where it had members. Arising from meetings with representatives of Dunnes Stores a number of items were identified which by their nature needed to be dealt with on a collective basis.
A range of correspondence ensued between the parties over an eight-month period but no meetings took place and no resolution was found.
The issue could not be resolved at local level. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 25th February 2009 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th April 2009.
The Company did not send in a submission and declined to attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the conduct of good industrial relations rests on the premise that any or either of the parties joined to an agreement regarding the resolution of grievances offers reasonable accommodation to the raising and processing of legitimate grievances as they arise.
2. The Union contends that while an element of good will existed at the time of the establishment of the relevant procedures in 1996, the behaviour and actions of Management over the past eight months seriously questions the Company's commitment to such sentiments now.
3. It appears that not only is there reluctance on behalf of Management to engage with representatives of the Union but also an apparent deliberate willingness to frustrate the process under which grievances are legitimately raised.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company sent in a letter to the Court in which it stated thatit does not accept that it has refused to comply with the obligations as set out in the "Agreement for Resolving problems arising between Management and Staff of Dunnes Stores"
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes with regret that the Company declined to attend the hearing although it did communicate with the Court in relation to the Union's claim.
The Company / Union Agreement of 1996 was concluded in settlement of a major dispute between the parties. It's clear purpose is to provide a procedural framework within which industrial relations disputes and differences arising between the parties can be resolved by negotiation and dialogue. At its most basic level this requires the parties to meet for the purpose of discussing differences when they arise. This in turn means that where the union requests a meeting to discuss a bona fide difference, at the appropriate stage in the procedure, the other side should respond positively to that request and within the timeframe specified.
The dictates of good industrial relations practice requires parties to honour their collective agreements in both the spirit and intent. The Court urges the parties to engage with each other in accordance with the terms of the 1996 agreement in relation to current and further disputes and differences.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
1st May, 2009______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.