FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ORGANIC LENS MANUFACTURING ESSIDEV S.A. (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Collective bargaining
BACKGROUND:
2.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim for separate collective bargaining rights for "Staff/Monthly-Paid" employees and "Hourly-Paid" employees.
The Union referred their case to the Labour Court on the 31st of July, 2017, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th September, 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1.Both the SIPTU staff group and the SIPTU hourly paid group have separate collective agreements with the Company.
2.The SIPTU staf group and SIPTU Hourly paid group have separate pension schemes.
3.The SIPTU staff group were not engaged in negotiations at the Workplace Relations Commission in February 2017 regarding the Company's recent pay proposal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1.The Company has always engaged with all of its SIPTU members as one group and will not depart from this custom and practice within the Company.
2. Introducing two separate groups will cause disharmony amongst its employees.
3.The Union's complaint is mis-stated as the monthly-paid staff group has never had individual collective bargaining rights.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union lodged a complaint under section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. The issue in disputes relates to the Employer’s claimed failure to recognise previously held collective bargaining rights on pay and terms of condition of employment for the Union members in the staff group within the Company.
The Union claim that they have two separate collective agreements with the employer which allow for separate negotiations one for the staff group and one for the hourly paid group. They acknowledge that the parties have negotiated together on pay for many years but argue that this does not negate their right to negotiate as separate groups. The Union indicated that in the course of other discussions under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission they had raised the possibility of this issue being dealt with at Conciliation, however, their understanding was that the employer had declined the offer of Conciliation.
The employer’s position was that for the many years they had negotiated with the Union as a single unit and that this was their preferred option. They did not have a signed copy of the document that the Union are relying on and believe it to have been a draft document that was never signed off on. In relation to going to Conciliation on this issue the Employer’s position was that this was never raised with them.
The Court having read the submissions of both parties and listened to the oral submissions made on the day recommends that this issue be jointly referred by the parties to the WRC for Conciliation. It is the view of the Court that the parties would benefit from such an engagement. The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
JD______________________
04 October 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.