FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - 14 NAMED INDIVIDUALS (BYRNE CAROLAN CUNNINGHAM SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Breach of Collective Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by a group of fourteen workers based in the Athlone Delivery Services Unit in relation to the Employer's alleged breach of a Collective Agreement. The same matter was previously heard and investigated by the Labour Court in February, 2015. The Labour Court subsequently issued Labour Court Recommendation No. 20946 in March, 2015. The Workers agreed to be bound by this Recommendation. On the 13th May, 2015 the Workers referred this claim to the Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 5th August, 2015. The Workers agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (the Act) and concerns a claim by fourteen named workers that the Company was in breach of its collective agreement, entitled “Collection and Delivery Work Practice Change Agreement between An Post and Communications Workers’ Union, dated 16thJanuary 2006. In submitting their claim the workers concerned had in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act, undertook before the investigation to accept the Recommendation of the Court.
The Court made it clear that it could not rehear the case as it had previously heard the claim on behalf of the same named workers and had issued its Recommendation on the matter in Labour Court Recommendation No: 20946, dated 19thMarch 2015, where the Court held as follows:-
- “The 2006 collective agreement is between two parties, An Post and Communications Workers’ Union (the Union), the workers in this case were not represented by the Union, therefore the Court was prohibited by the terms of the Agreement from giving its interpretation on the Agreement or its application to the workers concerned when only one party to the Agreement was before it.
Accordingly, the Court acknowledges and upholds the Agreement freely entered into by both parties and which continues to exist. Therefore, in the absence of the Union, the Court cannot process the claim before it.
The Court so recommends.”
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th August 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.