FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD GAIS EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation for failure to provide corporate clothing.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim refers to the Bord's failure to issue corporate clothing to 600 workers in 2009 as per the R2000 Agreement. The workers had previously received clothing in 2004 and 2007 and were due to receive it again in 2009. The Union is seeking compensation. The Bord's case is that EU Third Energy Package put forward by the EU Commission in September, 2007, caused uncertainty as to the Bord's structure and that it did not wish to issue Corporate Clothing that might become quickly obsolete.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th April, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th July, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The R2000 Agreement provides for staff to receive an issue of Corporate Clothing every two years. The failure of the Bord to comply with the Agreement meant that the workers have had to provide their own clothing in 2009 at a considerable cost (and there has been no issue of clothing so far in 2011).
2. There has been a considerable saving for the Bord due to its failure to meet the terms of the Agreement and the workers should be compensated accordingly.
BORD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The delay in issuing the Clothing in 2009 was due to the uncertainty concerning the structure of the organisation and, consequently, its branding. In an environment where public accountability is so important it would not have made sense to issue Corporate Clothing which could have quickly become obsolete and unusable within a very short time.
2. The Bord has never paid compensation in the past where there was a delay in issuing Corporate Clothing. A committee which includes Union representation is being set up to ensure that outstanding Corporate Clothing is issued
RECOMMENDATION:
There is no doubt that the agreement between the parties required the provision of corporate clothing in 2009. If the Company believed that there were reason which made it undesirable to comply with that provision at that time it should have raised the matter with the Union and sought agreement to derogate from the strict terms of the agreement.
The failure of the Company to engage with the Union on this matter and its subsequent decision to act unilaterally constituted a breach of the collective agreement which cannot be condoned.
However, in all the circumstances of the case the Court does not believe that it is appropriate to recommend compensation. Rather, the Court recommends that the Company reaffirm its commitment to fully honouring all provisions of the agreement in future and that it assure the Union that there will be no recurrence of what gave rise to this dispute. On that basis the matter should be regarded as closed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th July, 2011______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.