FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES: TARA MINES (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) AND 500 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SIPTU, UNITE AND CONNECT) DIVISION:
Complaint under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
On 21 November 2023 the Group of Unions referred this dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 in respect of the following 4 issues: (1) Date for recommencement of operations at the mine. (2) Voluntary Redundancy Terms. (3) The Status of Temporary and Fixed Term Contracts. (4) Payments for Shop Stewards for attending meetings retrospectively applied. The Group of Unions agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 December 2023. RECOMMENDATION: The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court has noted that the parties in this employment have a long history of collective bargaining and also notes that the employment is currently in a period of care and maintenance. The current matter arises from a request by the trade unions to the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 (the Act of 1969). In accordance with the terms of that Act, the trade unions, on behalf of their members, have undertaken in advance to accept the Recommendation of the Court whereas the employer was not required by the Act to give such an undertaking to the Court in advance of the hearing. Background to the current request for investigation and Recommendation by the Court It is clear that a disagreement emerged in late November 2023 when the Trade Unions considered that a range of matters should be referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in order that the Conciliation Service could assist the parties in their attempts to find a resolution to those matters. At that point it appears that the employer considered that such a referral would be premature. The Trade Unions then made a request, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act of 1969, to the Labour Court to investigate and make a Recommendation in respect of a trade dispute between the parties involving:
It is the Court’s understanding that the request made under Section 20(1) of the Act of 1969 does not form part of the procedures agreed and in place between the parties for the resolution of trade disputes. It is the Court’s understanding that no such request has previously been made to the Court by the trade unions in the history of the employment. At the hearing of the Court, the employer proposed that the parties would attend at the WRC in early January 2024 to engage in relation to a range of matters including all matters now before the Court with the assistance of the Conciliation Service. It appears that, according to the employer at least, the WRC has already given an indication of availability of its service for such engagement in early January. Issue involving a claim for re-commencement of mining operations. In all of the circumstance, the Court does not believe that there is reality to the proposition that the Court would recommend, as requested by the trade unions, that the mine would resume mining operations on 25th December 2023 or 1st January 2024. The Court has no practical expertise in mining or knowledge of the dynamics of the industry and has not had the benefit of understanding the nature of engagement at the WRC prior to a referral to the Court. The Court therefore recommends that the matter of mine re-opening should be comprehensively engaged upon by the parties in January 2024, assuming the assertions made at the hearing of the Court as regards availability of the Conciliation Service of the WRC are correct. Issue involving a claim in respect of voluntary severance terms. Similarly, the proposition that the Court would make a recommendation as regards voluntary severance terms to apply to future redundancies which might occur at an unknown date without comprehensive engagement having taken place between the parties is not, in the view of the Court, realistic in industrial relations terms. Apart from any other consideration, the Court is concerned, having regard to the long history of effective collective bargaining in the employment, that a Recommendation made under Section 20(1) of the Act of 1969 in such a matter would, as undertaken in advance by the trade unions, be accepted by the members of the Unions without resort to the normal democratic decision-making processes employed by the trade unions in the employment. In all of these circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties should engage in relation to this matter at conciliation in the WRC and that any outstanding matter following the exhaustion of efforts at conciliation should be referred to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (the 1990 Act) if necessary. Issue in relation to payment for shop stewards attending meetings. The Court noted the parties’ positions as regards payment for attendance by shop stewards at meetings. The parties made clear to the Court that there is an agreement between them in relation to this matter and, to the observation of the Court, there is no dispute between the parties as regards the terms of that agreement. The Court noted that the trade unions asserted that the terms of the agreement had not been applied to shop stewards in some instances and also noted that no specific issue in this respect had been raised with the company by or on behalf of any shop steward. The Court therefore recommends that any situation where it is contended that a shop steward attended a meeting and was not paid in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement should be raised by the unions with the company and should be the subject of discussion between the parties through normal procedures as necessary. Issue in relation to temporary and fixed term workers. The Court noted that an issue has arisen between the parties in relation to five fixed term workers and two apprentices whose employment was brought to an end during the current phase of care and maintenance. The Court notes that the employer has taken the view that this matter is not suitable for discussion at any future engagement either locally or at the WRC. The Court notes that it is for the trade unions to formulate any claims they wish to raise locally or to refer to the Conciliation Service of the WRC. The Court recommends that the employer should respect that procedure such that any matter that the trade unions might raise through normal procedures would be the subject of engagement through agreed procedures as necessary.
Overview The Court, in the overall, recommends that the parties should recognise that effective engagement on the entirety of the circumstances currently affecting the employment should be the subject of constructive engagement utilising all normal procedures including referral to the WRC and the Labour Court as necessary under Section 26(1) of the 1990 Act in the effort to find resolution to any matters in dispute. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
