FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - GROUP OF NAMED WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY TP ROBINSON SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Collective Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a collective agreement. The Workers referred this case to the Labour Court on 22nd June, 2016, 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 12th August, 2016.
WORKER'S ARGUMENT:
3.1.The agreement that was concluded in February 2013 does not apply as it was never agreed to by the claimants.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4.1.The Workers cannot enter into negotiations to alter an Agreement that was previously concluded with the recognised trade union on behalf on all employees.
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 seventy two named workers who challenge the employer’s interpretation of a Collective Agreement reached on 23rdFebruary 2013 which they argue does not apply to them as they did not agree with its terms. The workers also dispute how the employer had dealt with them in their challenge to the agreement.
Counsel on behalf of the Claimants sought a Recommendation from the Court to the effect that the Agreement does not apply to them and that the employer should engage with them to address their dissatisfaction with the Company’s industrial relations practices. Counsel also sought retrospective payments which the Claimants claim are due to them as they contend that they should not be bound by the said Agreement.
In submitting their claim the workers concerned have in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act undertaken to accept the Recommendation of the Court.
The Company stated that the February 2013 Agreement referred to was a revision of the“Revised Working Arrangements Including Variable Attendance Contracts at The Dublin Mails Centre”agreed between An Post and Communications Workers’ Union, dated 16thJanuary 2002. There are approximately 650 employees employed in the Dublin Mail Centre. It disputed the right of a group of employees to negotiate separately to alter an existing agreement, negotiated on their behalf, by the recognised Union of which most are members.
The Court notes that both the 2002 Collective Agreements and its revised version agreed in 2013 are between two parties, An Post and Communications Workers’ Union. The Claimants in this case were not represented at the Court hearing by the Union, therefore the Court is prohibited by the terms of the Agreement from giving its interpretation on the Agreement or its application to the Claimants concerned when only one party to the Agreement is before it. The CWU has sole rights to negotiate on behalf of employees of the Dublin Mail Centre, including the Claimants, on a collective basis and therefore the Court is of the view that it is not unreasonable for the Company not to enter into separate negotiations with the Claimants in the absence of Union involvement in such discussions.
Accordingly, the Court acknowledges and upholds the Agreement freely entered into by both parties, in both its original and revised form. Therefore, in the absence of the Union, the Court cannot process the claim before it.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th August 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.