INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001,
AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004
(REPRESENTED BY JOHN J. MURPHY, SOLICITORS)
- AND -
INDEPENDENT WORKERS UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Referral from The Labour Relations Commission under The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as Amended by The Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
2. MCM Security was established in 1984 and is involved in the security guarding business. The Independent Workers Union (IWU) on behalf of security drivers referred the dispute to the Labour Relations Commission claiming that workers were not:-
- receiving the full benefits of public holidays
- were not in receipt of a Sunday premium payment
- were losing out on overtime payments
- were not in receipt of the unsocial hours premium
- did not have a sick pay scheme
The Company maintains that this case is not covered by the legislation as the Company has collective bargaining arrangements in place and that SIPTU is the Union with sole negotiating rights.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th March, 2005 in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations Amendment Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act, 2004. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 18th May, 2005.
The following is the recommendation of the Court:
The employer raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court on grounds that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) of the Act have not been fulfilled. The employer’s representative made a submission to the Court in support of the objection.
In accordance with Section 3 of the Act the Court considers it appropriate in this case to hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not the requirements specified in Section 2 have been met.
Section 2(1)(a) states that the Court may investigate a trade dispute where the Court is satisfied that -
“It is not the practice of the employer to engage in collective bargaining negotiations in respect of the grade, group or category of workers who are party to the trade dispute and the internal dispute resolution procedures (if any) normally used by the parties concerned have failed to resolve the dispute”
The Company told the Court it has a collective agreement with SIPTU; that agreed disputes and grievances procedures are in place, which conform to the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance, and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000) and that the substantive issues raised by IWU have previously been raised and dealt with by SIPTU.
The Union stated that it was unaware that SIPTU had sole negotiating rights and argued no registered agreement exists to that effect.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that it is the practice of the employer to engage in collective bargaining negotiations in respect of the workers who are party to the trade dispute.
The Court finds that Section 2(1)(a) has not been fulfilled in this case; therefore, the dispute is not properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation. Consequently, the Court declines to investigate the substantive issues in dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th May, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.