Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87752 Case Number: LCR11615 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ALPACO FOIL LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (WICKLOW BRANCH |
Dispute concerning pay and conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the question of the Union being
recognised by the Company for the negotiation of pay and
conditions should be reviewed in August, 1988. The Court
recommends that in the meantime, however, Union members should be
accorded the right to be represented by their Union under the
grievance and disciplinary procedures.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87752 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11615
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: ALPACO FOIL LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (WICKLOW BRANCH)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning pay and conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which manufactures aluminium foil containers for
the bakery and allied industries, commenced production in April,
1983 in Rathnew, County Wicklow. Fourteen people are employed,
including the Production Manager and Managing Director.
3. In May, 1987, the Union wrote to the Company advising that
some employees had become members and requesting a meeting to
discuss pay and conditions. The Company did not respond. A
further letter was sent by the Union on the 19th June which again
was not responded to. On the 10th July, 1987, the Union referred
the case to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. On 21st
July the Company wrote to the Court declining an invitation to
attend conciliation. The Company advised the Court that it did
not recognise the Union for the purpose of negotiating terms and
conditions of employment for its employees. Following a further
request to the Company by the Court to attend a conciliation
conference on the same subject, the Company again declined the
offer of assistance. In its letter of the 22nd September it
pointed out that it had in place a staff association whose
committee is the sole negotiating body on behalf of employees and
that the association had voted on and accepted a pay increase for
1987/88. The Union subsequently referred the case to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
agreeing beforehand to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A
Court hearing was held on the 1st December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is six months since the Union, at the request of its
members, first sought a meeting with Management to discuss
pay and conditions in the Company. In that time, the members
have shown remarkable patience. Management, for reasons best
known to itself, has failed to respond to a modest request
for a meeting and even spurned the offer of assistance from
an industrial relations officer of the Labour Court.
2. The employees, through their Union, want their
representatives to discuss their pay and conditions with
Management. Pay and conditions are in need of not only
discussion but also improvement. At present weekly wages
amount to #97 plus #5 attendance/time-keeping bonus. Annual
leave amounts to fifteen days, the working week is forty
hours (10 hours x 4 days) and there is no sick pay scheme.
Unless the Company is prepared to enter into discussions with
the Union on a mutually fair and reasonable basis, the Union
will be forced to take sterner action.
3. The Union respectfully asks the Court to recommend, and
Management to accept even at this late stage, that employees
have the right to be represented by the trade union of their
choice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS;
5. 1. The notification from the Union concerning a 'dispute'
concerning 'pay and conditions' came as a surprise to
Management. Communications have traditionally been superb as
Management is paternalistic towards the employees.
2. The Company is extremely proud of its relationship with
employees and of the effectiveness of the staff association.
An agreement is in place between the Company and the factory
committee covering procedures, conditions of employment and
rates of pay for all the employees coming within its scope.
In late July, 1987, eleven out of the twelve employees gave
their signature in acceptance of the agreement including a
6.5% pay rise for the twelve month period from the 31st
August, 1987. The objective of the agreement is to promote
co-operation between the Company and its employees to the
furtherment of both sides' interests. Through the factory
committee individual members are well represented with the
packing area and the general area having a representative
each.
3. The Company respectfully submits that as eleven employees
have accepted the terms of the agreement, they have done so
in the full knowledge that it comprises the principal and
continuing conditions of employment within the Company.
Furthermore, as they, through the factory committee, have
also accepted the 1987/88 pay proposals, the Company is at a
loss to understand the nature of any 'dispute' concerning
'pay and conditions'.
4. It is also noteworthy that two members of the staff
association who are Union members have accepted the house
agreement and therefore acknowledge that the Company only
recognises the factory committee as the sole negotiating body
on behalf of employees. Furthermore, the one individual who
remains outside the staff association continues to benefit
from any agreement reached with the Company and has not
expressed dissatisfaction with either rates of pay or
conditions of employment.
5. Both the Company and the vast majority of its employees
are tied into an agreement which recognises the factory
committee as the sole negotiating body on behalf of
employees. The Company would be failing in its commitment to
its employees if it were to act in breach of the collective
agreement by conducting negotiations on pay and conditions
with the trade union.
6. The Company respectfully submits that the Court is
therefore precluded from making a recommendation on any issue
of pay and conditions which would undermine the in-house
agreement with the staff association. The Company wishes to
emphasise that it does not recognise the Union for the
purpose of negotiating terms and conditions of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the question of the Union being
recognised by the Company for the negotiation of pay and
conditions should be reviewed in August, 1988. The Court
recommends that in the meantime, however, Union members should be
accorded the right to be represented by their Union under the
grievance and disciplinary procedures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th January, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman