INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
CITY JET HANDLING LIMITED
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Union recognition.
2. The Union is seeking representation rights on behalf of its members employed by City Jet Handling Ltd. The Company commenced trading in December, 2000, when it obtained a third-party ground-handling license from the Department of Public Enterprise. It now provides handling services for a number of airlines at Dublin Airport.
The Union claims that it wrote to the Company on a number of occasions seeking a meeting with management regarding representation rights for its members. It states that the Company failed to respond to its request. The Union claims that Statutory Instrument 145 of 2000 is a mechanism that will effectively promote harmonious industrial relations in normal circumstances.
The Company indicated that it has an open management style and that staff communication policy is working well and sees no reason why this should change.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 20th of June, 2001.
The Company indicated by letter that it would not be attending the Court hearing.
3. 1. There is no mechanism currently in place for dealing with workers' concerns regarding pay, holidays, overtime, rosters, etc.
2. Over the past six months, competition in the third-party ground handling business has intensified greatly. This has had an impact on the work practices of employees in these companies.
3. The workers wish to become members of this Union and to have professional
representation in all industrial relations matters.
4. The Union has indicated to management its commitment to conduct its business
in "a calm dignified and non-adversarial way".
4. 1. The Company's pay structure, pension scheme, staff benefits and procedures are in line with market practices.
2. The Company will continue to encourage staff forums to maintain regular communication between management and staff while ensuring proper staff representation.
3. The Company has an open management style and staff communication policy is working well. It is not proposed to change this arrangement.
4. It is Company policy to deal directly with staff concerned regarding their working environment.
The Company did not attend the hearing but in a letter indicated that it would not be providing a detailed submission.
Having considered the written and oral submissions made by the Union and the Company letter, the Court recommends that the matter referred to the Court should be progressed as per the procedures outlined in S.I. 145 of 2000 Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution) (Declaration) Order, 2000 and that the Company should co-operate with the process.
This code recommends that "where negotiation arrangements are not in place and where collective bargaining fails to take place. . . " "in the first instance, the matter should be referred to the Labour Relations Commission who will appoint an Officer from its Advisory Service to assess the issues in dispute."
Given the situation outlined at the hearing, the Court recommends that this case be processed as a matter of urgency.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th June, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.