Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89572 Case Number: LCR12618 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: OVELLE LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for Union recognition and negotiating rights.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that the Irish Distributive and Administrative Trade Union
by written agreement is the Union having sole recognition on
behalf of the employees.
The Court considers that it would not be conducive to the
improvement or maintenance of good industrial relations to grant
recognition to a second union in the Company.
Accordingly the Court does not concede the Union's claim for
recognition.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89572 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12618
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: OVELLE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for Union recognition and negotiating rights.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of pharmaceutical
products at its Dundalk plant and employs approximately 35
workers. The Company has an agreement with another union
(I.D.A.T.U.) which has represented the majority of workers at the
plant for a number of years. In May, 1989, the Union concerned
wrote to Management seeking a meeting to discuss, increases in
basic pay, service pay, and other conditions of employment of
production workers. The Company refused to meet the Union on the
grounds that it was already party to an agreement with another
union which had sole negotiating rights on behalf of the workers
coming within the scope of the agreement. Local discussions
failed to resolve the issue which was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on the 25th July, 1989 but no agreement was reached. On 22nd
August, the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to
be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held
in Dundalk on the 17th October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In May, 1989 the Union organised a small number of workers
at the plant. When first approached by these employees the
Union was informed that they had previously been members of
the other union. They explained that they were dissatisfied
with the manner in which they were represented by this union.
They also stated that if they could not become members of this
Union they would remain unorganised.
2. The workers were advised by the Union that it did not
encourage any worker to leave another union for whatever
reason. The I.C.T.U. inter union agreement on transfers was
also explained to them. At this particular time the other
Union was not a member of the I.C.T.U., and in so far as the
workers in this claim were concerned, they did not view their
actions as infringing on any inter union agreement.
3. 3. The Union explained in discussions with the Company that,
at the time of "signing in" the workers, it was not in
conflict with any I.C.T.U. arrangement. The Union also stated
that it could easily work with any other union already
organised in the plant and indicated quite positively that it
could accommodate any existing agreements. The Union feels it
can also establish a good working relationship with the
Company and this could only enhance good industrial relations
which would be a common goal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company already has an agreement with another Union
and sees no reason why there should be two unions present in a
Company of this size. Out of a total staff of 35 the union
proposes to represent approximately 5 workers. The Company
will not recognise a trade union representing such a minority.
2. From Management's point of view the relationship with the
other Union has always been a good one. There is no knowledge
of staff discontent with the representation already provided.
It is contrary to good industrial relations that the union
concerned should seek to determine the pay and conditions of
employment of workers when another union has a mandate from
both the Company and a vast majority of the workforce to
negotiate such terms and conditions.
3. The Company has settled terms and conditions with the
other Union which are favourable to the workers, and both the
Company and the majority of workers consider the current
arragement for negotiations to be adequate. The Company has
never refused to discuss individual problems with employees.
There are no significant problems in the Company and the terms
and conditions of employment are in line with industry norms.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that the Irish Distributive and Administrative Trade Union
by written agreement is the Union having sole recognition on
behalf of the employees.
The Court considers that it would not be conducive to the
improvement or maintenance of good industrial relations to grant
recognition to a second union in the Company.
Accordingly the Court does not concede the Union's claim for
recognition.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___________________
9th November, 1989.
T.O'D./J.C. Deputy Chairman