FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WATERFORD COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY) - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS PNA (IRISH FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICE ASSOCIATION) (REPRESENTED BY MR PAUL MC GARRY S.C. INSTRUCTED BY SEAN COSTELLO & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Trade Union Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim by the Irish Fire & Emergency Services Association (IFESA) which is a branch of the Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA), for recognition by Waterford County Council for the purposes of industrial relations negotiations on behalf of it named members.
The employer's position is that IFESA is not recognised within the Local Government sector for the purposes of negotiating terms and conditions relating to the grade of Retained Firefighters.
On the 27th September 2013 the Workers, PNA and IFESA jointly referred the dispute to the Labour Court 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 4th March 2014.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA) is a registered trade union and holder of a negotiation licence under the Industrial Relations Acts.
2. IFESA is affiliated as a branch of the PNA. The Workers are members of the PNA (IFESA) and are employed by the Council.
3. Of the Fire-Fighters employed by the Council, 80% of them are members of the PNA.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council has 530 employees currently represented by 5 Unions for negotiation purposes. The Council does not believe that the fragmentation of the existing arrangements by the emergence of any new union will be of benefit to employees or the Council as Employer.
2. There is no legal/statutory provision that compels an employer to negotiate with a particular union.
3. Negotiation rights in respect of an individual local authority cannot be considered in isolation as it is a matter for the sector as a whole.
RECOMMENDATION:
Unlike all other cases in which the Court has recommended that a trade union be recognised for industrial relations purposes, the employer in this case has in place well established arrangements for the conduct of collective bargaining with authorised trade unions. The applicants in this case are, in effect, a break-away group who are seeking to establish negotiating rights with the employer through the convenience of another trade union that has no recognised involvement in negotiations with Local Authorities.
While the applicants have an acknowledged right to be members of whatever organisation they choose, the exercise of that right cannot, in the circumstances of the present case, imply a concomitant obligation on the employer to negotiate with their chosen organisation. In the Court’s opinion, recognition of this group would have a highly undesirable destabilising effect on the established negotiating arrangements currently in place. It would also greatly impair the orderly conduct of industrial relations within the Local Authority sector. On that account, it would be irresponsible for the City Council to accede to the applicants request for recognition.
For these reasons the Court does not recommend concession of the workers’ claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
14th March, 2014.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.