Labour Court chair calls for review of industrial relations

In February 2000, the chair of the Labour Court called for a complete review of Irish industrial relations and criticised politicians, trade unionists, senior civil servants and business leaders for undermining the role of the Court on occasions.

In a wide-ranging address to industrial relations practitioners, the chair of the Labour Court, Finbarr Flood, called for a review of the industrial relations system and criticised many of those who use the state-run Labour Court service. Mr Flood was speaking at the annual industrial relations conference of the weekly independent journal, Industrial Relations News (IRN), which took place in Dublin on 24 February 2000. The Court's chair rarely makes such strong public pronouncements.

Under Ireland's largely voluntarist system of industrial relations, formal Labour Court recommendations on industrial disputes are not legally binding. However, they are nearly always accepted by employers and, while trade unions accept them less frequently, they carry considerable "moral" weight and tend to form the basis for most final settlements. In recent years, said Mr Flood, too many high-profile disputes involved interventions by third parties after the Court had issued a recommendation. This had created a perception that its recommendations were just a "staging point", rather than the end of the dispute-resolution process.

Mr Flood's comment's come at a time of continuing high activity for the Court, which has about 700 cases on its books at any one time. They are also seen by most observers as being critical of interventions by a range of groups - including politicians - in high-profile disputes.

The Labour Court chair also noted how centralised agreements, like the new 33-month Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) (IE0003149F), have helped to bring stability to industrial relations because they have introduced certainty for business and the public finances. This "win-win" approach to pay determination was dependent on all parties honouring their commitments under the agreements, he said. In theory, once the bargain is struck there should be no going back and revising the agreement. This is not always the case, however, as there have been strikes - mainly in the public sector - over issues which the national agreements had already dealt with, he explained.

Finally, Mr Flood called on all of those involved in industrial relations - including the media - to be aware of how crucial it was that the views and interpretations they express are fully informed on the "entirety" of the Court's recommendations.