FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : STOBART (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY PURDY FITZGERALD SOLICITORS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Company refusing to negotiate with Union.
BACKGROUND:
2. Stobart (Ireland) Limited commenced it's haulage operations in Ireland in 2008 and is based in Donabate, north Co. Dublin. Seventy eight of the Workers previously based at the Centre transferred to the new Company under the transfer of Undertakings Regulations, however, another eight Workers were employed on less generous terms and it is this group, now reduced to six, that this dispute concerns. The Union is dissatisfied that the terms and conditions of employment of these Workers is lower than their colleagues who engage in similar work.
On the 27th May, 2010 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th June 2010.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The terms and conditions of employment for the six Workers is far lower than the industry norm. If left unchecked it has the potential to erode completely the hard-won improvements won over many years.
2. The Union is also seeking recognition for collective bargaining purposes for all of their members and not just the original seventy eight that transferred.
3. The Union requests that the two Workers that were transferred off-site to work in the Dublin Docklands be returned to Donabate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not in a position to address the issues raised due to the lack of time allowed to produce a vigorous rebuttal to the Union's claims. However, one point that was raised regarding the work location can be addressed, if one refers to the contract of employment, it clearly states that "Dublin" is the location of the employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
From the perspective of good industrial relations there appears to be no justifiable reason for the substantial difference which exists between the pay and conditions of employment of those associated with this claim and the generality of employees with whom they are engaged in identical work. This is particularly so in the light of the fact that the Claimants now before the Court were employed in anticipation of the contract with which the generality of drivers transferred to this Company are engaged.
In these circumstances the Court is satisfied that the Union’s claims are meritorious and reasonable.
The Court recommends that the parties should immediately enter into negotiations on the Union’s claims with a view to addressing the current anomalies between the pay and conditions of both groups.
With regard to the position of two Workers who were transferred and assigned to different duties, the Court further recommends that, in the interest of avoiding further acrimony, those Workers be returned the their former duties and location.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th June, 2010______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.