FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NEVILLE'S BAKERY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Sick pay, hours of work, overtime rate, union representation & employees right of appeal to third parties
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the workers in relation to their terms and conditions of work. The Union contends that their is a dispute between the Workers and the Company concerning sick pay, hours of work, overtime rates, union recognition and the right to appeal to third parties. The Union also raised a preliminary point regarding the existence of a trade dispute with the company. The Union attempted to engage with the Company regarding its members concerns but was unsuccessful. The Company stated in a letter to the Court that it was not aware of any trade dispute and would not be attending the hearing.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 11th November, 2011, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd February, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union is seeking a sick pay scheme in line with industry norms, a working week in line with the baking industry norms and overtime rates to be paid in line with Labour Court Recommendation No.18454. It is also seeking for Union recognition and the Workers right to refer disputes to a third party to be inserted in the Company Handbook.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the employer chose not to participate in this investigation or to put forward its position on the issues before the Court.
On the uncontested submissions of the Union it is clear that a trade dispute, within the meaning of s.3 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946, exists between the company and its employees who are members of the Union. It is equally clear that the trade dispute is capable of being investigated by the Court under s.20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
The Court was informed that approximately 80% of the Company's employees wish to be represented by the Union in matters of difference with their employer. There are significant outstanding issues between the parties in relation to the terms and conditions of employment of those represented by the Union, which forms the subject matter of the referral. It is wholly unreasonable that those matters should remain unresolved.
The only fair and effective way in which these matters can be addressed is through engagement between the Union and the Company with a view to reaching agreement.
The Court recommends that the Company and the Union should enter into a process of engagement with a view to reaching agreement on the Union's claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th February, 2012______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.