INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION)
Chairman: Mr Hayes
Employer Member: Ms Cryan
Worker Member: Mr McCarthy
1. Regularisation of Acting Position
2. This case concerns a dispute between the HSE CERS and IMPACT in relation to a claim for the regularisation of an acting position. The matter was referred to the Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th June, 2014. The following is the Court's Recommendation:
This is a dispute regarding the application of a provision of the Haddington Road Agreement (HRA) and comes before the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts 1926 – 2012 (the Acts).
The Court notes that Section 5 of the HRA sets out the procedure for resolving disputes that arise out of and between parties to that Agreement. In relevant part it states
- Dispute resolution
5.1 The Parties reaffirm their commitments under paragraphs 1.23 to paragraphs 1.27 in the Public Service Agreement, in particular the commitments given to resolving industrial relations disagreements within the Public Service promptly, using all available dispute resolution mechanisms (both statutory and non-statutory) with the outcome of the process final and binding on all Parties.
5.2 The Parties note that the legislative constraints imposed on the employer in the context of the financial emergency will continue to be the context for any claims made for improvement in pay or conditions of employment, and reaffirm the commitments given under paragraph 1.27 in that regard.
5.3 The Parties recognise that the complexity of the measures contained in this Agreement is such that unforeseen anomalies can arise. The Parties undertake to interpret this Agreement in good faith and to approach the resolution of any such anomalies in a positive fashion commensurate with the commitments contained within the Agreement. In the event that any anomaly cannot be resolved by agreement, the binding dispute resolution mechanisms provided for under this Agreement should be utilised.
The Court takes the view that these provisions do not envisage that parties will seek to resolve disputes through the use of Section 20(1) of the Acts as recommendations made under that section are, by statute, binding on the worker but not on the employer. It is clearly the intention of the parties that disputes resolution mechanisms to be utilised in such cases will be equally binding on both parties to the dispute.
Accordingly the Court, with the consent of the parties, recommends that the parties engage on the matter in dispute through the dispute resolution mechanisms envisaged in the Agreement with a view to bringing the matter to a mutually binding conclusion.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th June 2014______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.