FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ELEMENT SIX - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Shift Allowance and Bonuses; Banked Hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to shift allowance and bonuses and banked hours. The issues referred to the Court by the Union were previously the subject of Conciliation Conferences held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, however agreement could not be reached between the parties. The matters were referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th November, 2014. The Union agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute came before the Court by way of a referral by the Union pursuant to section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The dispute relates to a number of collective issues involving the totality of the Union members in the employment. They appear to arise in the main from a settlement of an earlier dispute which was considered by the Court in a joint referral under section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and in respect of which the Court issued Recommendation LCR19648.
The nature and complexity of the issues now in dispute are such that they cannot be adequately or appropriately addressed in a referral under section 20(1) of the Act of 1969. That section was never intended to deal with major collective disputes of this nature in employments in which collective bargaining takes place. Such disputes should only be referred to the Court under section 26(1) of the Act of 1990 after the parties have engaged in conciliation at the Labour Relations Commission and at a point when the Labour Relations Commission is satisfied that no further effort on its part will advance the resolution of the dispute.
That approach is consistent with the Court’s role as the tribunal of last resort in industrial disputes. It also allows the Court to have the benefit of a report from the LRC on the efforts made to resolve the dispute and the extent to which the issues in dispute were refined in conciliation.
In that regard the Court notes that in a draft agreement put forward by the Company in 2011, provision is made for a normal dispute resolution procedure which involves the joint referral of issues in dispute to the LRC and, if necessary, for a joint referral to this Court. Step 5 in that draft provides: -
- “In the event of direct discussions between the parties not resolving the issue(s) they will be referred to the appropriate service of the Labour Relations Commission. Both sides commit to full cooperation with such referral and to participation at the appropriate third party forum without delay.
In the event that the matter(s) at issue are not resolved at the LRC and where the Labour Relations Commission is satisfied that further efforts to resolve the dispute are unlikely to be successful, the parties will agree to the issue(s) in dispute being referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation”
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties return to conciliation and that a full and genuine effort be made to resolve the issues in dispute. If final agreement cannot be reached, in accordance with normal procedure, the parties should jointly request the LRC to refer outstanding issue to the Court under section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st November 2014______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.