Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88224 Case Number: LCR11877 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DARRAGH LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 7 production operatives for Union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union's
right to represent, at all levels, those employees who are members
of the Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88224 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11877
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DARRAGH LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 7 production
operatives for Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of boats for the
export market, employing approximately 19 production operatives.
The Union contends that practically all of the operatives joined
the Union, in November, 1987. The Union maintains that
subsequently half the operatives resigned the Union, due to
pressure from the Company. The Union sought negotiating rights on
behalf of its members. The Company requested the Union to supply
a list of operatives in membership. The Union was not prepared to
do this until such time as the Company indicated it willingness to
recognise the Union. The Company subsequently informed the Union
that it believed the existence of a trade union in the Company to
be prejudicial to the interests of the Company and more
importantly its employees and their relationship with the Company.
As the matter could not be settled at local level, it was referred
on 5th January, 1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference
held on 3rd March, 1988, and on 21st March, 1988, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place on 12th May, 1988, in Carrickmacross.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has given no reason for its refusal to
recognise the Union and has recently attempted to set up a
Staff Association. Through this Association the Company has
attempted to draw up a contract and a set of conditions of
employment. This was circulated by the Company on 11th
February, 1988. However, the majority of operatives,
including non-union members have declined to sign this
document.
2. The Labour Court has in the past recommended concession of
the claim for union recognition in a number of similar cases
(details provided to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believes the current mechanism for the
negotiation of wages and conditions to be adequate. Should
the Union wish to make representations on behalf of its
members on matters of individual grievances, then the Company
realises that it has little alternative but to discuss these
matters with the Union of the workers' choice.
2. Since the formation of the Company in 1955, there has been
no trade union in the Company, which can be accredited to the
good relationship that exists between management and staff.
Wages and conditions are in line with industry in general and
more especially in the area. The Company has for many years
had a regular pattern of meeting with all workers each Monday
and discussing aspects of a production and personnel nature.
3. There is a Staff Association in the Company which provides
a means for the operatives to process claims of an individual
or collective nature. The Company has a preference for
negotiating directly with workers rather than negotiating
through a third party. The Company does not want a situation
where the workforce is being represented by 2 bodies; a Staff
Association and a Union. This view is also adopted by the
operatives, since a large majority belong to the Association
as against a minority in the Union.
4. The Company has at all times maintained its prerogative of
communicating directly with employees at an individual level,
and has never refused a request to discuss individual problems
with workers.
5. If the Company were to entertain and meet inflated wage
claims, it would find it increasingly difficult to compete in
the market. The Company manufactures a luxury product i.e.
cruisers, and are totally exposed to market fluctuations. The
existence of a trade union in the Company will only put
constraints on the Company to compete effectively.
6. The Company consider it a waste of time and administration
to negotiate with a minority group. Further it is not
equitable to apply the conditions negotiated to the non-union
members.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union's
right to represent, at all levels, those employees who are members
of the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
31st May, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.