FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CAVAN AND MONAGHAN COMMUNITY AREA SERVICES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Refusal of the employer to recognise the Union for industrial relations purposes.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns the refusal of the Company to recognise the Union for industrial relations purposes. The Union wrote to the Company in December 2013 seeking a meeting and received a response from the Company for the names of the Union members. The Union continued to write to the Company seeking a meeting and as no response was forthcoming referred the case to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). The Company would not commit to attending the LRC and again requested the names of the Union members. The Union members are reluctant to give their names for fear that they would be discriminated against in the workplace.
On the 25th July 2014 the Union 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 17th September 2014. The Company did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Although service ranges from 7 to 13 years, Workers are issued with a new contract of employment every year. The latest contract of employment has changed the retirement age without agreement.
2. Changes were also made to sick pay and travel entitlements.
3. The Union members have concerns about personal protection equipment and have not received a pay increase in seven years.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer in this case declined to participate in the Court investigation of this dispute and failed to attend the hearing held for that purpose. It is noted that the employer is community-based and that it is supported from public funds. In these circumstances the Court finds it disconcerting that the Company chose not to co-operate with the dispute resolution machinery of the State in seeking to address the matters in issue between it and the Union.
While a number of claims have been advanced by the Union in its submission to the Court, the core issue in the dispute relates to the refusal of the employer to recognise the Union for industrial relations purposes.
The Court recommends that the Company should enter into negotiations with the Union for the purpose of concluding a collective agreement covering terms and conditions of employment of its members and a procedural framework within which normal industrial relations can be conducted between the parties. Those negotiations should commence without further delay and should be concluded within a period not exceeding two months.
The Court further recommends that in the event of disagreement on the appropriate terms and conditions of employment of those associated with this dispute or any other aspect of a collective agreement governing those conditions, the industrial relations machinery of the State, including the services of this Court, should be fully utilised.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
23rd September, 2014.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.