FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - NBRU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Dispute over Sunday duty allocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the filling of a roster position in Limerick. This 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 12th May, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th June, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 There is an agreement in place concerning changes of duties.
2 There is an agreement in place concerning how a driver seeks a change of duties.
3 This agreement was not followed in this case.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company followed the agreed internal dispute resolution procedure.
2 The Company is prepared to implement the resulting recommendation.
3. The Union is now trying to add a further tier to this agreed procedure.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds that Management and the Unions in this Company have appointed an Internal Tribunal to resolve industrial disputes between them as they arise. Where the ordinary members of the Tribunal cannot reach agreement on terms for the resolution of an issue in dispute they may agree to have the Chairman issue a recommendation that all parties are disposed to accept. The Chairman will only issue a recommendation where such a consensus exists.
In this case the parties requested the Chairman to issue a recommendation. Having so requested the Union now seeks to appeal against that recommendation to this Court.As the Chairman is appointed and trusted by the parties to exercise his judgement to find a resolution to complex and difficult cases, the Court would be very slow to set it aside. It would normally only do so where some irregularity in the procedure was disclosed that compromised the independence of the Chairman or where the decision was at variance with the evidence adduced.
In this case no such irregularity or variance was disclosed to the Court. Accordingly the Court on this occasion will not interfere with the decision of the specialist tribunal established by the parties to resolve industrial disputes of this nature. The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
23rd July, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.