LCR22925

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Section 26(1) (CAM-101142-23).

BACKGROUND:

This matter 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 2 January 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 February 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The history of pay bargaining in this employment encompassing, the Court understands, approximately 8,600 members of a number of trade unions, has, it appears, since 2014 involved agreements between the employer and three trade unions separately. In each case the agreements in any given year with each trade union contained common terms.

In the instance of the 2024 pay round, it appears that the outcome of bargaining has resulted in two trade unions representing 8,000 members approximately, recommending acceptance of a common outcome based on an identical offer having been tabled by the employer to each trade union separately at the conclusion of negotiations. One of these trade unions, the largest, has accepted the offer of the employer following a secret ballot of its membership and another trade union is in the process of completing a secret ballot of its membership. The UNITE trade union rejected the offer of the employer without conducting a secret ballot of its membership and seek to reach an agreement with the employer which would differ to the agreement which has been accepted by at least one other trade union and is being considered by the membership of another.

In the view of the Court, the effective exercise of good industrial relations requires the exercise by all parties of realism, pragmatism and common sense. In this matter, is appears to be accepted that were the Court to recommend concession of the trade union’s claim in the 2024 pay round, any acceptance by the parties of that Recommendation would have consequences for the stability of the agreement which has been reached with at least one other trade union and perhaps for the peaceful conduct of industrial relations in the employment generally. The over-riding mandate of the Court under the Industrial Relations Acts is to support the effective conduct of industrial relations and to provide its opinion, when requested to do so, in the form of a Recommendation where parties have been unable to find agreement directly or with the support of the Workplace Relations Commission. In the within trade dispute, it is difficult to see how a Recommendation to amend the terms on offer from the employer beyond the terms which have been accepted by at least one other trade union would advance the effective conduct of industrial relations in this employment. Effective and good industrial relations are, in the view of the Court, extremely important to workers and employers. This employment has a long history of effective pay bargaining and collective engagement even in adverse circumstances, and that is something to be valued by the parties.

The Court can understand the concern of the trade union with the history of engagement on the 2024 pay round and, in the view of the Court, the parties should engage to consider how a more cohesive structure of bargaining across three trade unions might be developed in the context of future pay round bargaining.

In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the offer of the employer to settle the 2024 pay round should be accepted by the trade union as the most reasonable outcome to the 2024 round and the most that can, in all pragmatism and reality, be achieved at this time.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
TH	______________________
16 February 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.