FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : KBC BANK DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.The Trade Union seeks a recommendation to deal with a range of matters as follows: The employer did write to the Court in advance of the hearing and that letter was sent to the Union by the Court in light of what appeared to be a failure of the employer to circulate its letter to the Union. The Court is required by Section 20(1) of the 1969 Act to convene a hearing and to issue a Recommendation whenever a referral is made under that statutory provision. The Recommendation of the Court is, in accordance with the Act, undertaken to be accepted by the Union or worker (s) making the referral while not binding in any way upon the employer. The employer decided not to attend the hearing of the Court and consequently deprived the Court of engagement upon the letter which it had written to the Court. The Court therefore did not take correspondence received from the employer into account in any way in formulating this Recommendation. The Court relied solely upon the written and oral submissions made by the Union at its hearing. The Court is advised by the Union that the employer has not agreed to meet with it or to participate in conciliation at the Workplace Relations Commission. The Court is also advised that very significant matters associated with the conduct and future of the employment of the members of the Union arise in the employment at this time. The Court considers it to be regrettable that workers in membership of the Trade Union are not facilitated to engage as they desire with their employer through their union at a time when fundamental issues arise in their employment. The Trade Union sought a Recommendation dealing with 1. Pension Protection 2. Equal and Transparent Retention Payments 3. Payment of Covid Recognition Vouchers for those who left in 2021 4. Fixed-term contractors to be made permanent 5. Extend job security beyond 2022 Having regard to the Court’s role as the ‘Court of last resort’in the institutional framework provided by the State to assist in the resolution of trade disputes between workers and their employers and also to the fact that, notwithstanding the trade dispute before the Court relates to a range of detailed matters affecting various aspects of the employment arrangements of the membership of the Trade Union, the employer has declined to engage with that statutorily provided framework, the Court must recognise the reality of its limited capacity to assist in the resolution of this trade dispute. The Court therefore confines itself to recommending that the parties should engage constructively to address the five matters referred by the Trade Union to the Court and should commit to utilising the State’s institutional dispute resolution framework as necessary in an effort to resolve matters by agreement. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
