Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88828 Case Number: LCR12290 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Claim for Union recognition and negotiating rights.
Recommendation:
5. There are some unusual features in this case. Taking these
into account the Court recommends that there should be a breathing
space until the middle of June next. Should the assistant shift
managers then conclusively indicate that they wish to be
represented by the Union and that a procedural agreement be
negotiated by the Union on their behalf, then the Company should
accede to the Union's request.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88828 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12290
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for Union recognition and negotiating rights.
BACKGROUND:
2. In February, 1988, the Company's assistant shift managers
joined the Union. On 18th February the Union requested a meeting
with the Company to discuss and establish a recognition agreement
and a procedural agreement. The Company responded on 1st July,
1988, stating that it had been informed by the assistant shift
managers that they had decided not to have the Union seek
negotiating rights on their behalf. The Company contends that
consultative machinery between the assistant shift managers and
senior management was already in operation and this machinery was
proving successful in dealing with problems and grievances as they
arose. The Union on 12th October, 1988, again informed the
Company that the assistant shift managers had mandated the Union
to establish recognition and negotiate a procedural agreement. As
no further progress was achieved, the Union referred the matter to
the Labour Court on 28th October, 1988, for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. Due to the unavailability of one of the parties a
Court hearing was not held until 14th February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are 13 assistant shift managers and all are members
of the Union. No other Union has negotiation rights for this
grade and all have mandated the Union to proceed with this
case.
2. The Court has on numerous occasions recommended that
companies recognise and negotiate with the Union representing
its members. The Union is requesting the same rights for its
members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company already has consultative machinery in place
which allows the assistant shift managers to meet and discuss
problems and grievances with senior management. This
machinery is successful. This group meets every 6 weeks (it
had originally met quarterly). It is a very open process and
has covered items such as wage levels and conditions of
employment. The assistant shift managers have received a
financial reward for taking part in the consultative process.
This reward could possibly be in jeopardy if the consultative
machinery were to be discontinued. The Company does not
believe that the consultative machinery has been given enough
time to develop fully.
2. The Company is not anti-union. Indeed the Union here-
concerned represents another grade in the Company and the
Irish Transport and General Workers' Union represents all
production operatives. The Company fully accepts that in any
situation where the assistant shift managers jobs were at
risk, such as redundancies, discipline etc. then
representation by the Union may be required.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. There are some unusual features in this case. Taking these
into account the Court recommends that there should be a breathing
space until the middle of June next. Should the assistant shift
managers then conclusively indicate that they wish to be
represented by the Union and that a procedural agreement be
negotiated by the Union on their behalf, then the Company should
accede to the Union's request.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_______________________
22nd February, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.