Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86993 Case Number: AD8748 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PFIZER CHEMICAL CORPORATION - and - ITGWU |
Appeals against Rights Commissioners Recommendation CM/17106 concerning Union representation.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties.
On the question of shift representation it is clear that under the
terms of their agreement with the Company and by custom and
practice the Union has mitigated its rights in this matter and has
accepted the eminently practicable rule that the representative of
a work unit should be drawn from that unit. The Court therefore
upholds the Rights Commissioners recommendation in this respect.
On the second matter at issue the Court further supports the
prerogative of the Union members, within the rules of the Union to
elect to office whomsoever they choose and upholds the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation that he be so recognised by the
Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86993 THE LABOUR COURT AD48/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 48 OF 1987
Parties: PFIZER CHEMICAL CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeals against Rights Commissioners Recommendation CM/17106
concerning Union representation.
Background:
2. The case concerns a worker who has been a Union representative
for a number of years. The worker who has been re-elected as
Union representative of shift A has been transferred to another
area and no longer works on that shift. He is also the section
secretary. The Company was not prepared to recognise him in
either of these positions as it was unwilling to allow an employee
to represent a work group of which he is not a member. The Union
considered the Company was trying to dictate to it how it should
be represented and that as long as the worker was still a Company
employee he was still eligible to be a Union representative.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and the
matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 12th November, 1986 the Rights Commissioner
issued his recommendation as follows:
" 6. A shift is a representational unit and it is only
practical and proper that the representative of that
unit should come from within it. Therefore Shift A
should now proceed to elect one of their members to be
their shop steward.
7. If the Union membership in Pfizer want the worker to be
their Section Secretary that is their prerogative so I
recommend that the Company recognise him in that
capacity."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
On 24th November, 1986 the Company appealed against paragraph 7 of
the recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. On 5th December,
1986 the Union appealed to the Court against paragraph 6 of the
recommendation. The Labour Court heard the appeals on 13th May,
1987. A hearing arranged for an earlier date had been adjourned.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) In 1981/82 when the worker was transferred to a
different shift the Company said he could no longer
represent the shift which elected him. The Union
rejected this and stated that it was the Union not the
Company who decided who would be its representative at
negotiations. The Company did not contradict this and
the worker continued to represent the shift that
elected him even though he had transferred to a
different shift.
(ii) It is unprecedented for the Company to determine who
the Union's representative should be. It is also in
breach of the Agreement on Union representation.
Section 3 of clause 6 of the Agreement states: "The
Union shall be responsible for the proper election of
shop stewards." In clause 7 under the heading
negotiating committee it states: "..For this purpose
the Trade Unions will elect from amongst their number a
chairman and secretary to act on their behalf..." In
their submissions to the Rights Commissioner the
Company assumed that the officers referred to applied
to the Trade Union Group. It should be pointed out
that there are two committees, a joint union committee
which meets the Company on wages only and a Union
committee which meets the Company regularly on all
other matter's. There are no officers on the joint
negotiating committee. It is clear therefore that the
Union's interpretation of clause 7 is correct and that
the worker is entitled to be the Union's section
secretary even if he was not the shop steward for Shift
A.
(iii) It is clear from the shop stewards credentials
particularly clauses 1 and 2 that the worker is still
eligible to represent Shift A and to continue as
section secretary. It is also clear that the Company
accepts that the Union's rules and regulations apply to
all its workers who are Union members. The worker was
elected as section secretary in accordance with Rule 48
of the Union rule look.
(iv) It is incorrect to state that the worker has no contact
with Shift A. The workers transfer to O.S.P. warehouse
on day work increases rather than lessens his contact
with Shift A. He is on day shift when they are on day
shift and meets then on night shift when they are
finishing that shift. He is therefore in a position to
assist them with any problems that may arise.
(v) It is the sole function of the Union to determine whom
its representatives and negotiating officers should be.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Membership of the shift to be represented was
fundamental to the agreement on shop stewards numbers
and was valid on the basis of efficiency and
common-sense.
(b) The number of Union shop stewards and their
representational units were agreed between the Company
and the Union and have not been altered over the years.
It is clear from clause 6.8 of the Company/Union
agreement that a representative must be a member of the
group he represents.
(c) The Company never accepted any deviation from the
agreed method of representation. The temporary
exceptions in 1981 and 1985 were declared to the Union
as exceptions and were allowed for a short period to
facilitate the regularisation of the agreement.
(d) The worker's recent transfer to the O.S.P. warehouse on
daywork means that he is now working in a different
area on different work duties and on different hours of
work. This underlines the inappropriateness of his
continuing to act as shop steward for Shift A.
(e) The Union has unilaterally decided not to follow the
agreed procedure for the election of shop stewards and
therefore an unorthodox situation currently exists
which must clearly be resolved. It is the Company's
strongly held view that the only logical and realistic
way to resolve this issue is for the Union to accept
paragraph 6 of the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
(f) It is clear to the Company that a worker must be a shop
steward in order to be eligible to be a section
secretary of the Union in negotiations with the
Company.
(g) Under the agreement the Company has an obligation to
recognise only duly accredited shop stewards and their
trade union official. The worker does not come under
either of these categories.
(h) It is clear that clause 7 of the agreement refers to
the joint negotiating committee and not the Union
committee.
(i) The Rights Commissioner's recommendation that the
Company accept the worker as a member of the
negotiating group is completely contrary to the
comprehensive Company/Union agreement. The
recommendation is also ambiguous and contradictory
since the worker has not been elected as a section
secretary and is not even an accredited shop steward.
Indeed this recommendation could lead to a situation
whereby four of the six union members who form the
negotiating group might not be accredited shop
stewards. This would be an intolerable and
undemocratic situation and one which would have serious
industrial relations implications for the Plant.
(j) The appointment of an officer who is not a duly elected
shop steward would be seriously out of line with the
industrial relations practice that has operated within
the Company for the past 16 years and which has proved
satisfactory. More importantly, such an appointment
would not be in accord with the Company/Union agreement
on representation.
DECISION:
6. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties.
On the question of shift representation it is clear that under the
terms of their agreement with the Company and by custom and
practice the Union has mitigated its rights in this matter and has
accepted the eminently practicable rule that the representative of
a work unit should be drawn from that unit. The Court therefore
upholds the Rights Commissioners recommendation in this respect.
On the second matter at issue the Court further supports the
prerogative of the Union members, within the rules of the Union to
elect to office whomsoever they choose and upholds the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation that he be so recognised by the
Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
Deputy Chairman.
10th June, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C.