Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8865 Case Number: LCR11730 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: J. A. HICKEY LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;ACTSS |
Claim, on behalf of five clerical workers, for union recognition and negotiating rights.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having examined the agreement dated 1981 between the
Company and another union is satisfied that the clerical employees
in the firm were not covered by that agreement. In these
circumstances the Court recommends that the Company meet the
ATGWU(ACTSS) with a view to negotiating a comprehensive agreement
acceptable to both sides, which would give sole negotiating rights
on behalf of staff who are excluded from the 1981 agreement to
that union.
The Court further notes that the ATGWU recognises the scope of the
1981 agreement with regard to the other employees in the firm.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8865 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11730
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: J. A. HICKEY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(ACTSS)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of five clerical workers, for union
recognition and negotiating rights.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are clerical workers employed by the
Company. They applied to the Union for membership and were
accepted. On 26th May, 1987 and 16th June, 1987 the Union wrote
to the Company seeking a meeting but the Company made no response.
The Union refered the matter to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. The Company responded to the invitation to
conciliation by stating that, as the majority of its employees
were represented by another union, it considered affording
representation rights to a second union would not be in the
interests of good industrial relations and that in the
circumstances, it would not grant recognition to the Union. On
4th December, 1987 the Union referred the matter to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1967. The Union agreed to be bound
by the Courts recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on
15th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers who joined the Union are entitled to be
represented by it.
2. There is no agreement between the Company or any other
union that prevents the Union from looking after the workers
interests. The workers here concerned are a separate body of
workers and their salaries and conditions of employment are
not covered by negotiations between the Company and any other
body.
3. The Company have advanced no good reason why the Union
should not be afforded recognition.
4. The workers have no representation and that is why they
have joined the Union.
3. 5. It should be noted there was no ICTU obstacle to the
workers joining the Union.
6. It is not acceptable to the workers that the Company
should dictate which union they can join.
7. There can be good co-operation between unions in a Company
where there is a multiplicity of unions. Furthermore there
have been many cases where only one union was involved and
there have been industrial relations troubles.
8. The Union has good relations with the other union which
represents the process workers. It does not want to have
anything to do with representing the process workers whose
representation by the other union is covered by agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is already one union representing employees in the
Company. If the clerical workers wish to join a trade union
then they are free to join that union. It is recognised that
any worker has a constitutional right to join or not to join a
trade union, but an employer has a reciprocal right not to
recognise and negotiate with a union.
2. There is a valid agreement between the Company and another
union (ITGWU) which not alone affords that union the exclusive
right to represent specific categories of employee involved in
production, but also states the Company's willingness to
recognise the right of the ITGWU to represent the interests of
any clerical staff who might wish to join that union.
3. The Company's decision not to recognise and negotiate with
a second trade union is in line with good industrial relations
practice. Many of the most serious industrial relations
disputes have resulted from inter-union disputes. The Court
has an obligation to ensure that good industrial relations
practices are upheld.
4. No evidence has been submitted to infer that the interests
of the clerical employees would be any less well served by the
ITGWU than by the Union which is seeking recognition. The
Company has made every effort to respond to any grievances
raised by the clerical employees.
5. Two Labour Court Recommendations, LCR9142 and LCR8594 have
considerable relevance to this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having examined the agreement dated 1981 between the
Company and another union is satisfied that the clerical employees
in the firm were not covered by that agreement. In these
circumstances the Court recommends that the Company meet the
ATGWU(ACTSS) with a view to negotiating a comprehensive agreement
acceptable to both sides, which would give sole negotiating rights
on behalf of staff who are excluded from the 1981 agreement to
that union.
The Court further notes that the ATGWU recognises the scope of the
1981 agreement with regard to the other employees in the firm.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
____7th___March,___1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman