FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CADBURY IRELAND LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation of a peace agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court today concerns the interpretation of the parties agreement on industrial peace. In 1983, the parties concerned agreed that certain procedures would apply where a dispute existed, which could lead to industrial action.
The Peace Agreement is a mechanism to stop individuals causing disruption which may result in unofficial industrial action taking place. Shop Stewards, by invoking the Peace Agreement are trying to avoid this type of action and not trying to undermine the existing agreements.
The Company should accept that Senior stewards will not abuse the Peace Agreement and, therefore, should allow them to invoke the Peace Agreement when they deem it appropriate to avoid Industrial Action.
At present, if the Company wished to invoke the Peace Agreement and the Unions wished to refuse to accept its invocation the Company would not allow it. There is no provision in the Peace Agreement to allow the Company refuse the Union's right to invoke the Peace Agreement.
The Agreement sets out very clearly and in great detail the terms of reference and the manner in which it will be applied. It very clearly provides that it can only be invoked where:-
- there is imminent industrial action and
- there is a disagreement about the operating practice that should apply whilethis issue
- the issue is not already covered by existing procedures as outlined above.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of June, 2002 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of November, 2002 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions perceive the 1983 "Agreement" as a valuable mechanism and it has served both the Company and the Union's well.
- 2. The "Agreement" cannot be amended unless both parties agree the amendments.
4 1. The Company believes that the "Agreement" was never intended as a "safety net" for all types of industrial action.
2. The Company views the "Agreement" as operating as an essential mechanism for maintaining on going investment in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case that is before the Court concerns the interpretation of the peace agreement, which has existed in the Company since 1983. This agreement is acknowledged by both sides to be a very valuable agreement and both are most anxious to retain it. The clear intention of the agreement is to allow a cooling off period in a situation where industrial action is imminent.
The reality of the situation is that it has only been invoked in isolated incidents and in those circumstances, it was as a supplement to the normal procedures operating in the Company. This was the intention of the parties from the outset. The Court believes that the parties to the agreement, who are the custodians of the agreement, need to ensure that this practice continues and to ensure that it is not invoked in a haphazard fashion, but at the penultimate stage of a dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
December 2002______________________
GB/MB.Caroline Jenkinson
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Carmel McManus, Court Secretary.