FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH RAIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Breach of Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of two of its members employed as Ultrasonic Operators. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim that the Employer has acted in breach of the terms of a Collective Agreement surrounding the Claimants' contracted hours of work. It is the Union's claim that the Claimants have an agreed arrangement to increase their weekly contracted hours of work from 44 to 48 however, the Employer has failed to implement this agreement. The Employer rejects the Union's claim and agreement could not be reached. The 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 18th December, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st January, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimants willingly increased their hours of work from 44 to 48 to facilitate the training of new employees.
2. The Claimants have carried out an additional 4 hours of work without appropriate remuneration since 2014.
3. The Union on behalf of the Claimants is seeking retrospective reimbursement of all additional hours worked as well as the establishment of a contract confirming the agreed 48 hours of work.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that it has not breached the terms of any agreement in this matter.
2. The Employer maintains that it is not in a position to implement the proposed changes to hours of work as agreement was not reached between all of the employees to whom the specific agreement applies.
3. The Employer asserts that it has acted in good faith in its attempts to negotiate with the Union on this issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the established practice in this employment is that the terms and conditions of employment for all grades are determined by collective agreement between the Company and its representative Trade Unions. It is also noted that, except where otherwise agreed, the terms of such collective agreements are universally applicable to all employees within the grade to which they relate. Both the Company and the Union wish to retain that arrangement.
In the present case four out of six employees in the grade concerned wish to work on the terms proposed by the Company. In these circumstances the Court recommends that it should be accepted that ade factoagreement has come into being providing that those terms are applicable to the grade generally.
It is noted that difficulties exist in relation to two employees within the grade who do not wish to change their existing conditions. The Court further recommends that discussions take place between the Union and the Company directed at finding a practical basis upon which the position of those two individuals can be addressed.
The Court was told in the course of the hearing that the two workers who are associated with the Union’s claim are currently working a 48 hour week and are only being paid for 44 hours. The Company disputes that this is the position but, in any event, accepts that if the unions understanding is correct the workers concerned will be paid for their actual hours worked.
The Court notes the Company’s position in that regard.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th January 2016______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.