LCR22493

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

LIMERICK CITY AND COUNTY COUNCIL
(REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY)

- AND -

15 EMERGENCY CONTROL OPERATORS, 5 SENIOR EMERGENCY CONTROL OPERATORS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1.Regrading Of Munster Regional Control Centre Staff.

BACKGROUND:

2.
This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21 July 2021 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990




RECOMMENDATION:


This matter comes before the Court as a claim by the Trade Union for an independent job evaluation of the roles carried out by members employed in the Munster Regional Control Centre of the employer.

The employer, in its submission, has submitted that the claim of the Trade Union is a cost increasing claim which is prohibited by the Building Momentum Pay Agreement for the Public Sector to which the Trade Union and the employer are party. The Trade Union contend that the claim is not prohibited by the parties’ collective agreement.

The Court has consistently, for sound industrial relations reasons, taken the view that collective agreements made between parties should be respected until replaced by a new agreement between the parties.

The parties’ collective agreement, “Building Momentum”, makes provision for resolution of trade disputes in respect of matters covered by the agreement.

The procedures set out therein provide that whenever engagement on such a dispute concludes at conciliation in the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) without agreement, the parties will, rather than refer the dispute to the Court in the manner provided for by the statute under section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (the Act), refer the dispute to fora established by the parties for that purpose under their agreement.

The parties to the dispute now before the Court are in fundamental disagreement as to whether the claim of the Trade Unions is a cost increasing claim within the meaning of “Building Momentum” and thus precluded by that agreement.

The employer, at the hearing of the Court and in response to a query from the Court, asserted that, having regard to the terms of the collective agreement, the matter should more properly be addressed through other fora.

The Court was unable to achieve clarity or agreement between the parties as to how, in light of their agreed arrangements, the Court should be regarded as the appropriate forum to address their dispute, which relates to a matter covered by the agreement.

In all of the circumstances and having particular regard to the need to respect the parties’ own collective agreement as regards resolution of disputes relating to matters covered by their collective agreement, the Court recommends that the parties engage to agree how, having regard to the agreed dispute resolution mechanisms contained in that collective agreement, the claim of the Trade Union can most appropriately be engaged upon.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Shane Lyons, Court Secretary.