Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88644 Case Number: LCR12075 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: VENDING PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim for Union recognition, and a Union/Company Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that in the event of an increase in the existing
membership of the Union, the Company should recognise the right of
the Union to represent those workers in membership.
On the question of the negotiation of a procedural agreement, the
Court does not consider that the present is an opportune time in
which to make a recommendation on this matter.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88644 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12075
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: VENDING PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for Union recognition, and a Union/Company Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1969 and is engaged in the
distribution of catering disposables nationwide, and employs
twenty four workers. In January, 1988 seven employees in
warehouse and distribution applied for and were accepted into
membership of the Union. In February, 1988, the Union wrote to
the Company requesting a meeting to discuss the Union claim for
recognition and a Company/Union agreement. Despite further
requests from the Union for a meeting the Company did not respond,
and in the meantime five members left the Union - membership of
which was reduced to two employees (the Company contends that in
fact only one employee has remained in the Union). As the Company
was not willing to discuss the matter either at local level or at
conciliation the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Court hearing took place on the 6th October, 1988. On the 13th
October, the Company wrote to the Court giving the names of
workers who are not in the Union and reiterated that only one
worker is now a Union member.
UNION's ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union wrote and telephoned the Company on many
occasions requesting a meeting but the only response from the
Company was to request the number and names of those who had
joined the Union. The Union replied stating that it was not
its policy to disclose the names of members prior to reaching
an agreement with the Company. Due to pressure from the
Company five of the Union members left, but despite this
pressure two workers have maintained their membership. The
Company refused to release the shop steward for the Court
hearing, but was prepared to release "any other union member."
2. The Court has consistently recommended in favour of Union
recognition and good industrial relations depend to a large
extent on a voluntary code of conduct between employers and
trade unions. The agreed procedural rules bring mutual
benefits to both sides of industry. The Company should
recognise the employees' right to be members of and be
represented by a trade union. The Company should agree to
enter immediate discussions with the Union with a view to
establishing grievance and disciplinary procedures in line
with good industrial relations practice. The Union suggests
that an industrial relations officer of the Court be made
available to the parties to assist in the formulation of the
Company/Union Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has not responded to the Union requests for a
meeting principally because the Union membership of the
workforce (of twenty four) has declined to just one person.
The Company feels that this number is totally unrepresentative
of the workfoce and that a union recognition agreement with
any Union could not be justified in those circumstance. Since
its inception the Company has conducted all staff relations
matters internally. The fact that all staff bar one are not
in membership of the Union would indicate that the majority
want this method of establishing pay and conditions to
continue. It is not equitable and is contrary to good
industrial relations practice, that a single member of staff
should determine the pay and conditions of the majority of the
workforce. Accordingly the Company should not be required to
negotiate with a trade union on behalf of a single member of
staff.
2. The Company believes that management and staff are
satisfied with their present terms and conditions of
employment. The staff have clearly indicated to management
that they are not interested in forming a trade union, nor do
they see any benefit accruing from trade union membership.
There is a genuine concern amongst the workforce that, should
recognition be granted to a single individual, the majority
would be forced to accept the terms and conditions negotiated
by this individual. The Company has a small workforce and has
a good working relationship with each employee. In order to
maintain this relationship the Company prefers to negotiate
directly with its employees and has never refused to discuss
individual problems with workers. There are no significant
problems in the Company, and the terms and conditions of
employment are in line with industry norms. The Company
recognises the employee's right to be a member of a Union,
equally the employee should recognise the Company's right to
refuse recognition to a trade union with a membership which is
totally unrepresentative of the general workforce needs,
wishes or aspirations.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that in the event of an increase in the existing
membership of the Union, the Company should recognise the right of
the Union to represent those workers in membership.
On the question of the negotiation of a procedural agreement, the
Court does not consider that the present is an opportune time in
which to make a recommendation on this matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_______________________
24th October, 1988. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.