I understand the Union is seeking to engage with the company on issues relating to the pay and conditions of its members. The matter was referred by the union to the Labour Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
The company was not represented at the Labour Court hearing. The Court found it regrettable that the Company declined to participate in the investigation of the dispute or to put forward its position on the Union's claims.
In its recommendation, the Court could see no reason as to why the workers associated with the claim should be afforded less favourable terms and conditions of employment, including rates of pay, than those of other workers engaged in a similar work in analogous employment in which working conditions are determined by collective bargaining. In this context, the Court recommended that the dispute should be resolved by the parties entering into negotiations on the Union's claims with a view to concluding a collective agreement.
I regret that the company has decided against attending the Labour Court hearing, contrary to good industrial relations practice in that regard. In my view, the experience and expertise of the Labour Court offers the most appropriate and effective avenue for resolving such issues.
I would urge both parties to avail of the services of the State’s industrial Relations machinery who remain available to assist the parties, if requested. In my opinion, engagement with the State's industrial relations machinery offers the best way whereby the parties involved in this dispute can hope to resolve their differences.
However, the system of industrial relations in Ireland is essentially voluntary in nature and recommendations of the Labour Court are not legally binding. Neither the Labour Court, nor I, can compel a company to comply with such recommendations. Ultimately, responsibility for the settlement of a trade dispute rests with the parties to the dispute.
