FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LAOIS COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Facilities for Trade Union Representatives at Council Premises.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for appropriate facilities for Trade Union Representatives at Council Premises. 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 10th April, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th June, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 It is unreasonable to expect union representatives to be able to carry out their duties in a confidential nature. Instances have arisen where union representatives have had to meet with members who presented, often in a distressed state, in toilets or stairwells because appropriate accommodation was not available.
2 Such basic facilities are provided by most progressively thinking management throughout the public and civil service.
3 The Union sought, as an alternative to an office, a prefabricated structure located at the rear of the main building.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management make adequate facilities available to the Union and its members for Union business as and when required.
2 All available general meeting rooms have been open to the Union for any relevant meeting. Also, the Council chamber has also been made available to the Union for large meetings.
3. Management affords facilities to Unions in line with the Code of Practice published by the Labour Relations Commission under SI. No 169 of 1993 made under the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by IMPACT for the provision of a furnished dedicated office at the Council’s headquarters in Portlaoise for trade union business use. IMPACT informed the Court that other trade unions representatives of workers in the Council supported this claim. It submitted that difficulties have been encountered in securing facilities such as staff notice boards, filing cabinets and meeting room facilities where issues can be discussed in a confidential manner.
Management submitted to the Court that the Council makes facilities available to the Union and its members for union business as and when required. Meeting rooms are available through its on-line booking system and there are other small meeting rooms available when required. It rejected the claim on the basis that adequate facilities were already afforded which meet the requirements of Industrial Relations Act, 1990, Code of Practice on Employee Representatives (Declaration) Order, 1993, S.I. No 169 of 1993.
The Court notes that Management committed to provide the Union/employee representatives with a locked filing cabinet and notice board facilities. Having considered the submission made the Court is of the view that the facilities provided by the Council are reasonable to enable the Union/employee representatives to carry out their functions as employee representatives promptly and efficiently and meet the standard required under S.I. No 169 of 1993. Accordingly, the Court rejects the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CO'R______________________
17th June 2014Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.