This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

Return to Search

LCR22338

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/20/111

RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR22338

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

LUFTHANSA TECHNIK SHANNON LTD
(REPRESENTED BY IBEC MID WEST)

- AND -

300 WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

Chairman:	Mr Geraghty
Employer Member:	Ms Connolly
Worker Member:	Mr Hall

SUBJECT:

1. Claim to register an agreement.

BACKGROUND:

2. In 2013 the Employer decided to close the Company Defined Benefit Pension
Scheme, issuing 6 months’ notice of its intention to do so.

The Union is seeking to register a 2014 agreement regarding a new pension scheme and believe that provision for this is contained within the agreement

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

The Union has sought meaningful engagement under Section 7 (ii) of the agreement from the outset, in order to find a resolution to this matter but to no avail.

The Union state nothing in the legislation prevents the parties from registering a Collective Agreement and that the Employer has not cited any difficulty with the areas of legislation itself but they raised perceived consequences not raised in 2014.

The Union contend “that to explore whether the registration arrangements set out in that legislation could be employed in respect of the Agreement” was meant to mean more than a review of the legislation regarding registered agreements, contrary to what the Employer states.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

The Employer did not attend the hearing but in a letter received by the Court they stated their objection to registering such an agreement. These discussions ended without agreement and the Employer sees no purpose in further discussions on the matter.

RECOMMENDATION :

The Court invariably favours engagement between parties in the best interests of good relations. In this case, the Court notes the view of the Employer that such engagement will serve no purpose, as they believe that discussion on the topic has been exhausted.

Unfortunately, the Employer chose not to attend the Court hearing. Had they done so, it might have been possible for the Court to examine the concerns of both parties in greater depth. With the limited capacity afforded by a one-sided hearing, the only assistance that the Court can offer to the parties is to recommend that they re-engage in discussion to attempt to resolve any issues between them.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

	Tom Geraghty
NJ	______________________
18 December 2020	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Noel Jordan, Court Secretary.