Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88387 Case Number: LCR11978 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH FOOD INGREDIENTS LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Claim for recognition and negotiating rights.
Recommendation:
5. The Court feels that this Company has already concluded an
agreement granting sole negotiating rights to another Union.
It should have informed the employees of their obligations under
the agreement at the time of their recruitment. However in the
circumstances the Court does not feel it would be appropriate to
recommend that the Company should break its agreement and
recognise another Union.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88387 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11978
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR
PARTIES: IRISH FOOD INGREDIENTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for recognition and negotiating rights.
BACKGROUND:
2. Early in 1988, the three staff of the laboratory at Irish Food
Ingredients Ltd applied to join Manufacturing Science and Finance
(M.S.F.) and their applications were accepted by that union. They
joined the company in January, 1988. On 12th February, 1988, the
union wrote to the company seeking recognition and the
establishment of a procedural agreement. On 22nd February, 1988
the Federated Union of Employers, on behalf of the company,
replied that the company recogised another union as having sole
negotiating rights for it's employees. The workers contend that
no such information was conveyed to them on their recruitment and
the union claims that it is entitled to recognition. Agreement
could not be reached at local level and on 19th May, 1988, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The union agreed to be bound by the Court's decision.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 21st July, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The right of workers to be represented by the union of
their choice is widely recognised. It is spelled out in
detail by the International Labour Organisation (details
supplied to the Court). It is implicit in the Irish
Constitution and has been upheld by the Supreme Court (details
supplied to the Court). The right to associate is incomplete
without the additional rights to organise and to engage in
collective bargaining. This is recognised by the
European Social Charter of 1961, to which Ireland is a party
and which lays down provisions concerning the right to
bargain. The right to representation has also been recognised
by the High Court and by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in
relation to dismissals. The Labour Court in a number of
recommendations has also recommended to various companies that
they negotiate with unions (details supplied to the Court).
2. The workers represented by the union have never been in a
union before. They were not approached by any representative
with a view to having them join a union. They were not told
by the company when they were recruited that there was only
one union recognised by the company and that it had sole
negotiation rights. Neither were they informed that there was
any obligation on them to join that union. So far as the
MSF is aware, there is no pre-entry closed shop agreement.
3. The members represented by MSF do not wish to join the
union which is presently recognised by the company, for the
following reasons.
(a) That union is not affiliated to the Irish Congress of
Trade Unions.
(b) All staff in the Laboratory have joined MSF
(c) The workers concerned do not believe that their best
interests will be served by joining the recognised union.
(d) No approach was ever made by the recognised union to
recruit the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was the recognised union and the management of a
company which was engaged in the same business as the employer
and which closed in 1985, who were instrumental in persuading
the present company to commence business.
2. The agreement between the company and the recognised union
states that all categories of workers employed by the Company
"will now and in the future become and remain members of the
Union," and that "the Union shall enjoy sole negotiating
rights now and in the future for the employees of the
Company." (Copy of agreement supplied to Court).
3. The fact that some employees are not members of the
recognised union does not dilute the terms of the agreement.
4. The interests of the laboratory employees would be
safeguarded by the recognised union. That union has
negotiated competitive terms and conditions favourable to its
members.
5. The company is not prepared to break its agreement with
the recognised union. To do that would endanger a very
positive relationship which exists with it and would undermine
the trust between the company and the majority union group of
workers. This could lead to industrial relations
difficulties.
6. The company recognises the right of any employee to join
a trade union of his/her choice. There exists a pre-entry
closed shop agreement between the company and the recognised
union, and any employee who wishes to exercise his/her right
to join a union must join the recognised union.
7. Having regard to the size of the company, its agreement
with the recognised union and the small number who are not
members of that union, there is no justification in the
company's view, for it having to deal with another union. The
company requests the Court to uphold its position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court feels that this Company has already concluded an
agreement granting sole negotiating rights to another Union.
It should have informed the employees of their obligations under
the agreement at the time of their recruitment. However in the
circumstances the Court does not feel it would be appropriate to
recommend that the Company should break its agreement and
recognise another Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
____________________________
29th July, 1988. Chairman
P.F./J.C.