Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8725 Case Number: LCR11053 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BASF - and - ITGWU |
Claims on behalf of 2 clerical workers for: (a) compensation for re-location, (b) the advertising of all vacancies internally in accordance with clause 12 of the Company/Union Agreement, (c) the making available of all relevant Company information in accordance with the objective of the Company/Union Agreement, (d) the restoration of the deduction of Union dues at source and, (e) reversion to the Company/Union agreement by the Company.
Recommendation:
10. It is apparent that there were misunderstandings between the
parties - arising from the poor communications between them - as
to whether the draft Agreement had in fact been agreed to and
signed. However, even if the Agreement had a formal existence,
Management acted within their rights in withdrawing from it,
having given the required one month's notice of their intention to
do so.
The Court recommends that Management should continue to recognise
the Union's right to represent those employees which it has in
membership. In the event of the Union increasing its membership
significantly within the firm, consideration should be given to
the conclusion of a Collective Agreement between the parties.
On the question of compensation arising as a result of the
transfer from Clonee to Blackrock, the Court recommends that the
Union should accept the same arrangements for its members as those
which were accepted by the other workers. In accordance with good
industrial relations practice management should advertise all
vacancies internally. The Court further recommends the
re-introduction of the deduction of Union dues at source.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8725 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11053
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11053
Parties: BASF IRELAND LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of 2 clerical workers for:
(a) compensation for re-location,
(b) the advertising of all vacancies internally in
accordance with clause 12 of the Company/Union
Agreement,
(c) the making available of all relevant Company
information in accordance with the objective of the
Company/Union Agreement,
(d) the restoration of the deduction of Union dues at
source and,
(e) reversion to the Company/Union agreement by the
Company.
Background:
2. The Company, which had previously been represented in Ireland
by Denis Coakley Limited, was formed in 1983. At that time it was
located in Clonee, Co. Meath and employed a total of 34 workers,
28 of whom transferred from Coakleys. Eight of the workforce were
then members of the Union.
3. During 1983 discussions took place between the Company and the
Union on a comprehensive works agreement. The Union says that the
terms of the Agreement were agreed in 1985 but the Company
disputes this on the basis that the final draft of the Agreement
was never signed by the Union (details of the efforts made by the
Company to finalise the agreement were supplied by the Company to
the Court).
4. At a meeting between the parties in August, 1985, the Company
informed the Union that arising from a re-organisation in the
Company for economic reasons, it was re-locating its business in
Blackrock, County Dublin. The Union contended that it was not
kept informed about the proposed move and sought a meeting with
the Company with a view to discussing compensation for the
disturbance caused to those workers who wished to move with the
Company and voluntary redundancy terms for those who found it
impossible to move. A meeting took place between the parties in
January, 1986, at which redundancy terms were discussed. The
Union says that despite a number of efforts subsequently (details
supplied to the Court) to arrange a meeting with the Company to
discuss the disturbance compensation matter, it failed to do so.
The Company contends that the Union and staff were kept fully
informed of the re-organisation within the Company and of the
proposed re-location and refers to a number of dates up to March,
1986, when meetings took place on the matter (details supplied to
the Court). The Company says that at the meeting between the
parties in August, 1985, (referred to above) the Company offered
appropriate redundancy terms to those workers opting for voluntary
redundancy, and at the meeting of the parties in January, 1986,
(referred to above) the Company says it responded to the Union's
claim for disturbance compensation by stating that a decision on
compensation could only be made when it knew which employees
wished to transfer to Blackrock.
5. The Company's move took place on 28th April, 1986, and 26
employees agreed to transfer to the new premises while the other
eight opted for voluntary redundancy. Following the move the
Company recruited 8 additional workers to make up the full
complement of staff required. Arising from the redundancies which
took place, only 2 of the staff are now members of the Union.
Since moving to the new premises the Company has ceased the
deduction at source of Union dues in respect of these two workers.
6. At a meeting between the Company and management in August,
1986, the Union quantified its claim in respect of disturbance
compensation, by seeking the payment of #900 to each worker or the
provision of a monthly bus ticket to each for two years. The
Union also raised the question of the unilateral decision by the
Company to discontinue the deduction at source of Union dues,
without consultation or agreement, and complained that vacancies
were not being advertised internally in accordance with the terms
of the Company/Union Agreement. The claims were subsequently
rejected by the Company. However, it did offer to pay
compensation to the two workers for all identifiable additional
costs arising from the Company's move to the new premises, as had
already been offered and accepted by all other workers involved in
the move.
7. By letter of 1st October, 1986, the Company informed the Union
that it was giving one month's notice of withdrawal from the
Company/Union Agreement. The Union, by letter of 8th October,
1986, requested the Company to honour the Agreement and sought a
further meeting with the Company to discuss all outstanding
matters. The Union says it received no response to this letter
and accordingly, referred the claims outlined in paragraph 1 above
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. The Company
declined the Court's invitation to attend a conciliation
conference to discuss the matters and the Union then referred the
claims, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 19th February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
8. (i) When the Union referred the claims to the Labour Court,
pressure was put on the workers to have the claims