Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88707 Case Number: LCR12080 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SANTRY ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim for Union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Company is not refusing to recognise
the claimant union or to engage in collective bargaining with it.
Given the small number of workers involved, it does not appear to
the Court that a written agreement is essential to the conduct of
normal industrial relations and therefore does not recommend that
the company should be obliged, against its strong objection, to
sign such an agreement.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88707 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12080
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: SANTRY ENGINEERING LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures steel shelving at its factory in
Ashbourne, Co. Meath. It has a total workforce of thirty-eight.
In May, 1988 nine workers joined this Union (this figure is now
eight as one worker has since left the Company). The Company was
advised of this. In September, 1988, the Union requested
recognition for those who had joined the Union, re-instatement of
a worker on lay-off and the negotiation of a procedural agreement.
The Company's position is that it stated that it would meet the
trade union official at all times to resolve workers' grievances
but would not enter into a formal agreement. The Union's position
is that the Company stated that individual workers could process
their problems but that the Company would not give the Union group
recognition and refused to negotiate a recognition agreement. On
14th September, 1988 the Union referred the matter to the Labour
Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
The Court investigated the dispute on 14th October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The right to organise, be recognised and have collective
negotiations in good faith is contained in the International
Labour Organisation Convention on Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Right to Organise of 1948. This right is
also implicit in the Irish Constitution where under Article
40.6.10, the State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the
right of citizens to form associations and unions subject to
public order and morality.
3. 2. The right to associate is incomplete without the
additional rights to organise and to engage in collective
bargaining, which is recognised by the European Social Charter
of 1961 which binds Ireland and lays down provisions regarding
the right to bargain. The Labour Court has previously
recommended that companies negotiate with the relevant Union
(LCR No.s 7464, 7803, 8290, 8325, 8587, 8922, 9082 and 9115
refer). The right to representation has also been recognised
by the High Court and by the Employment Appeals Tribunals in
relation to dismissals. The Company should grant recognition
and negotiation rights and negotiate a procedure agreement
with this Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has no objection to workers joining the
Union. It is prepared and has stated to both the workers and
the Union its willingness to negotiate with the Union at all
times to resolve any grievances, including collective
bargaining issues. There is no obligation on the Company to
enter into a formal written agreement and the Union should
accept the recognition being given to it.
2. The Company will not enter into a formal written
agreement with the Union. The small number of workers
involved does not justify it and a formal written agreement
would primarily benefit the Union and not the workers in the
Company. In addition, the Union in the past has refused to
abide by the terms of formal written agreements and has
refused to use normal dispute resolving procedures. As a
matter of policy the Union seeks to breach the terms of the
National Agreement although it is affiliated to ICTU, who
negotiated it.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the Company is not refusing to recognise
the claimant union or to engage in collective bargaining with it.
Given the small number of workers involved, it does not appear to
the Court that a written agreement is essential to the conduct of
normal industrial relations and therefore does not recommend that
the company should be obliged, against its strong objection, to
sign such an agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
24th October, 1988 ----------------
U.M./U.S. Chairman