LCR23057

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

A Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

BACKGROUND:

The Workers referred this case to the Labour Court on 15 June 2024 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 October 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

This matter comes before the Court as a referral by SIPTU Trade Union under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The referral was submitted on 15 June 2024. By letter of 22nd July 2024 the Employer informed the Court that it would not be attending and requested that the Court not schedule a hearing under Section 20(1). The letter went on to say “Should the Labour Court determine that it wishes to convene a hearing with SIPTU and the relevant employees in respect of this matter, the Company will not be attending and does not agree to be bound by any resulting recommendation”.

The issue of whether the Court proceeds to the hearing of a section 20 (1) referral, is not a matter of the Courts preference. Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 states “ Where the workers concerned in a trade dispute or their trade union or trade unions requests the Court to investigate the dispute and undertake or undertakes before the investigation to accept the recommendation of the Court under section 68 of the Principal Act in relation thereto then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act or in this Act, the Court shall investigate the dispute and shall make a recommendation under the said section 68 in relation thereto”.

In line with the requirements of the Act the Court proceeded to hear the case. The Union were seeking to have a 6% pay increase that was paid to hourly paid workers in 2022 and a 10% pay increase that was paid in 2024, applied to its five members who are salaried staff.  Prior to this all staff had received the same level of pay increase.

The Workers had engaged with their management at local level on this issue but without making any progress. There issue was processed through the Employer’s grievance procedure, but contrary to the procedures set out in the staff handbook they were not allowed have representation at the meetings. The Employer refused to go to the WRC when the internal processes had been exhausted despite the internal proceedings providing for that.

 The Employer in a letter to the Court stated that some of the Workers who are taking this claim have access to a bonus scheme which hourly paid Workers do not and have the opportunity to earn further bonuses by generating new business. This was disputed by the SIPTU on behalf of the Workers as it did not apply to all the salaried staff.

The Court, taking into account the submissions made to it recommends that the Employer recognise the Union as the representative of those employees who are in membership of SIPTU Trade Union and should engage with them in dealing with employment related matters including matters relating to pay, arising within the employment and affecting those members.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
TH	______________________
18th November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

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