Labour Court Database
File Number: CD94132
Case Number: LCR14472
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: FAS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Unions refusal to co-operate with motor trade pilot scheme which was due to commence on 28th February, 1994.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94132 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14472
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
1. Unions refusal to co-operate with motor trade pilot scheme
which was due to commence on 28th February, 1994.
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Authority's
proposal to run a second pilot scheme for motor apprentices
at the Waterford Training Centre. The Authority is currently
piloting a number of trades under the New Standards Based
Apprenticeship System. The introduction of pilot schemes was
the subject of a Labour Court investigation in January, 1993,
(LCR No. 13940 refers). An agreement was reached after the
Court issued its recommendation (I.C.T.U. agreement).
On 13th January, 1994, the Union wrote to the Authority and
under the heading of Pilot Motor and Bricklaying indicated
that until a full review of these two pilot schemes had taken
place there would be no further involvement of its members in
pilot schemes involving these two disciplines. On 25th
January, 1994, negotiations took place at which agreement was
reached on the setting up of a consultative group (details
supplied to the Court). Arising from this agreement the
Bricklaying pilot scheme proceeded.
The Authority proposed to run a second motor pilot scheme in
Waterford to commence on 28th February, 1994, but the Union
indicated that it would not co-operate with the scheme. The
matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 24th February, 1994, but
no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 2nd March, 1994, under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 24th March, 1994.
3. 1. No agreement was reached with management on 25th
January, 1994, in relation to the running of a second
motor pilot in Waterford.
2. Management has used the recruitment of apprentices to
pressurise the Union into reaching agreement on pilots.
3. Management should abide by the I.C.T.U. agreement of
25th January, 1993, and the agreement on the use of the
4. On completion of the review process, favourable
consideration will be given to running a second motor
pilot in Waterford. Deviation from the I.C.T.U.
agreement must be negotiated.
4. 1. The Union was aware that a second motor pilot was
planned for Waterford. The reasons for running this
second pilot were confirmed to the Union by letter dated
6th December, 1993.
2. It was management's understanding that the agreement
reached on 25th January, 1994, was in relation to pilots
in both bricklaying and motor.
3. A consultative group has been put in place to ensure
that information relating to the pilots and their
reviews can be exchanged.
4. Apprentices have been recruited and have already
completed phase 1 with their employers. It is damaging
to the Authority and is unfair to these apprentices that
they are prevented from commencing their training under
phase 2 of the apprenticeship scheme.
The Court has considered all the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions.
The Court fully recognises the reservations expressed regarding
the running of further pilot courses and the perception of rolling
If the new system is to be successful the development of the
courses requires the full co-operation of all concerned management
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties exchange such
information as is available from the experiences of the pilot
courses to date, in accordance with the procedures agreed in early
It is the view of the Court that it would be unreasonable to hold
up the introduction of the further pilot courses and therefore the
Court recommends that the workers co-operate with the introduction
of the courses as required.
The Court further recommends that the parties discuss the
instructor's claim at the earliest possible date.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th June, 1994 Tom McGrath
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.