FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANCY - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Union recognition and collective bargaining rights.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns the Union's claim for formal trade union recognition and collective bargaining rights on behalf of the Archaeologists employed by the Company.
- The Union wrote to the Company in February 2018 seeking discussions on a pay claim. In March 2018 the Company replied declining the request.
In April 2018 the Union referred the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission. The Company declined the invitation.
On the 6 November the Union on behalf of the Workers 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.
- By letter dated 16 January 2019 the Employer informed the Court that it was not attending the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background
This is a case referred by the Union under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
The Union sought to engage with the Employer on a pay claim on behalf of Archaeologists. The Employer indicated that they have a direct engagement model and would not discuss such matters with anybody outside the company. Following the unwillingness by the Employer to attend conciliation at the WRC, the Union balloted members for industrial action and a number of days’ strikes ensued.
In light of the unwillingness of the Employer to attend conciliation, the Union referred the issue of Union Recognition and Collective Bargaining rights to the Court. The Employer declined to attend the Court hearing but they did send in a submission.
Union arguments
1 Unite is a registered trade union. It represents 27 of the Employer’s declared workforce of 36 employees and is, therefore, significantly representative.
2 Although the Employer state that they deal directly with staff, they have no collective bargaining arrangements in place and no policies or procedures to resolve disputes and the Employer should engage with UNITE.
3 The Employer was represented at a previous Labour Court hearing by IBEC, as is their right. However, they refuse to extend that same right to their employees.
Employer’s arguments
1 The direct engagement model has served the staff well and the Company is widely acknowledged as having the best terms and conditions within the industry, pay has been increased by 65% over the last 4 years and the Company is paying between 4% and 7% more than a UNITE pay claim. The Company believes that the majority of its 60 staff, including 20 approx. on fixed term contracts, are not members of UNITE.
2 The Company believes that the issue of union recognition is being largely driven by personnel outside the organisation and believes that UNITE is ignoring a vote to accept grading structure proposals.
3 Employers who choose not to engage in collective bargaining are not required to do so and this voluntarist approach is backed up by the ILO Convention
Recommendation
The Employer did not attend the hearing. They sent a written submission. The Court, having considered the information before it, recommends that the Employer accept the right of the Union to represent the employees in its membership.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
CR______________________
28 January, 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.