FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GO SAFE (REPRESENTED BY CAOIMHE RUIGROK B.L., INSTRUCTED BY DILLON DARCY, SOLICITORS - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by the Union for representative rights for their members in the Company.
The Employer's said that it has a Monitoring Operators Forum (MOF) with employee participation, which deals with proposed business developments as well as pay and issues relating to terms and conditions of employment.
On the 28 August 2018, 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 21 November 2018.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers work under severe conditions and are confined to their van for the full duration of their shift between 9 to 11 hours.
2. Despite the State paying for the services of Go Safe the company refuses to engage with the Union.
3. The Company should recognise SIPTU as the representative body for both collective and individual negotiating for its members and engage accordingly.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has a successful history of negotiating with its employees.
2. Any trade dispute can be dealt with through the internal dispute resolution process and the MOF process.
3. It is the Employer’s preference to engage with their staff directly through the established Forums.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union are seeking that the Employer engage with them in respect of a number of issues of concern to their members. The Union in their submission set out a number of issues that they wished to discuss with the Employer. The representative for the Employer advised the Court that the Employer had an internal Monitoring Operators Forum which is populated by Workers with which they negotiate. They currently have a collective agreement in relation to a number of the issues identified by SIPTU which runs up until December 2019. The representative for the Employer informed the Court that it was their preference to engage with their staff directly through the established Forum rather than through a representative body and on that basis, they were not willing to engage with SIPTU.
The Court recommends that the Employer recognise the Union (SIPTU) as the representative of those employees who are in membership of the Union and should engage with it in dealing with employment related matters arising within the employment affecting those members.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
CR______________________
11 December, 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.