FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - NATIONAL BUS & RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for representation/ negotiation rights on behalf of Supervisory grades.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for representation/negotiation rights on behalf of its members employed in Supervisory grades by Iarnrod Eireann.
Over time within Iarnrod Eireann the Union have established negotiation rights for a number of groups within the operative and locomotive grades. Negotiation rights in respect of Supervisory and related groups have traditionally rested with TSSA and SIPTU. The Company is of the view that it cannot unilaterally grant negotiation rights to the Union as it already has an agreement with TSSA/SIPTU on such rights for this group.
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 14th September, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that their members are effectively being treated disproportionately to their colleagues in that they are not allowed negotiate their terms and conditions within Company/Trade Union agreements.
2. The Union maintains that the two Bus Companies under the CIE umbrella allow for NBRU Supervisors to be represented by their 'Union of choice'. This demonstrates the ability of the three Unions to work together for the benefit of their members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company strongly contends that two representative Trade Unions are more than adequate to represent the grades and numbers involved.
2. The Company maintains that affording collective bargaining rights to a third union for this staff grouping would lead to fragmentation of its negotiation structures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the NBRU for representation/negotiating rights on behalf of Supervisory Grades within the Company. The Company held that it could not unilaterally grant negotiating rights to NBRU as it already had an agreement with TSSA and SIPTU on such rights for this category of workers.
NBRU sought these rights for members of the Union who had been promoted into the Supervisory grades and wished to continue to be represented by it in negotiations with the Company.
Having considered the positions of both parties, the Court notes that this is not a case of refusing to either recognise the NBRU or to seek to de-recognise Union membership for those who are promoted into higher grades. Those promoted retain the right to be represented in any Company negotiations by those unions who already have established negotiating rights for the grades in question and those promoted will continue to have access to NBRU for representation on individual matters.
The Court notes that it is open to NBRU to engage in discussions with TSSA and SIPTU on the matter of representation/negotiating rights on behalf of Supervisory Grades within the Company and in the event of these unions acceding to such a request by NBRU, then the Company has indicated it will consider the matter further.
In all the circumstances, the Court can see no merit in making a recommendation to grant the NBRU’s claim for representation/negotiating rights on behalf of Supervisory Grades and accordingly rejects the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th March, 2010______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.