Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89488 Case Number: LCR12548 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FUJITSU MICRO ELECTRONICS IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (NO. 2 BRANCH) |
Claim for the implementation of the terms of a Company/Union Agreement which is acceptable to both parties.
Recommendation:
This recommendation is on the full document only.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89488 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12548
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 6
PARTIES: FUJITSU MICRO ELECTRONICS IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(NO. 2 BRANCH)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the implementation of the terms of a Company/Union
Agreement which is acceptable to both parties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns approximately 30 supervisory, technical and
administrative grades who are employed at the Company's Tallaght
plant. The Union and the Company have been involved in protracted
discussions concerning Union recognition and a Company/Union
Agreement. The first issue was the subject of a Labour court
Recommendation L.C.R. 12409. In relation to a negotiated
procedural agreement the Court also recommended that "both parties
meet as soon as possible to negotiate such an agreement which will
protect the interests of both parties". Following local
discussions the Company produced a draft Agreement, however a
number of differences were highlighted between the parties and the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 26th May, 1989. A conciliation conference was held
on the 29th June, 1989 but agreement could not be reached on a
total of fifteen clauses as follows: Clauses 2.3, 5.1, 5.3,
5.9(ii)G, 7.5, 7.6, 7.8, 7.8, (R), 8.5, 9.1, 9.4, 9.6., 10.1, 10.2
and Appendix 3 (D.A.S. form). The Union claims that its
amendments make the proposed Agreement more sound and protects the
interests of their members. Management contends that it must have
an Agreement which ensures that operations take place
uninterrupted while grievances, disputes and appeals against
disciplinary decisions are processed through normal channels. The
Company states that another Branch of the Union (No. 14) have
already accepted the standard Agreement on procedures and
disciplines. The Union claims that the workers concerned lay
great stress on the wording of their agreement, because they
rarely it ever take industrial action, but wish to be certain that
their Agreement when finalised leaves as little as possible to
chance. As the dispute could not be resolved it was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 11th
July, 1989. Court hearings were held on the 13th and 18th July,
1989.
Company Clause 2.3
"Membership of I.T.G.W.U./2 is totally voluntary, employees in
Personnel and Finance Departments are excluded"
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union proposes the following text "Membership of the
Union is not compulsory but is encouraged. Employees in the
Personnel Department who wish to become members will do so on
the understanding that they do not play any active role in
union affairs".
2. The Union contends that the present wording of "totally
voluntary" is designed to act as a disincentive to staff
joining. Management is expressing a preference against Union
membership. The Clause should be more positive and encourage
staff to become Union members or at least reflect the
constitutional position of "freedom of choice" in a positive
way.
3. The attempt to exclude staff in the Finance Department is
wholly unreasonable, and is without precedent in any other
agreement. The staff concerned carry out routine accounting
functions and are the main group of clerical workers in this
claim. The attempt to exclude staff in the Personnel
Department is more understandable and has some limited
precedents. It does not pose a great problem for the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. With regard to the Finance Department it is the Company's
position that it puts employees in an invidious and
potentially conflictual position if they were, while in the
Department, to be in membership of the Union.
2. It is accepted by the parties that employees in the
Personnel Department are to be excluded from Union membership.
Company Clause 5.1
"Shop Stewards will be elected in accordance with the
procedures established by the Union and the Union will
promptly advise the Company in writing of the names of the
elected Shop Stewards and of any subsequent changes.
Reasonable facilities will be provided for conducting
elections during working hours following prior approval of
the Personnel Manager. Election will be by secret ballot
vote. No payment will be due from the Company for those
attending".
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union proposes the following text.
"Shop Stewards will be elected in accordance with the
procedures established by the Union and the Union will
promptly advise the Company in writing of the names of the
elected Shop Stewards and of any subsequent changes.
Reasonable facilities will be provided for conducting
elections during working hours following prior approval of
the Personnel Manager. No payment will be due from the
Company for those attending".
2. The election of Shop Stewards is entirely a matter for the
Union members in accordance with the Union Rule Book. It has
no place in a Union-Management Agreement. Neither should such
an Agreement be used by F.M.E. to extend their philosophy in
such matters. The Union is a responsible Union with
intelligent and articulate members and does not need
Management to dictate how internal Union affairs are
conducted.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company is entitled to know how the people it is asked
to recognise as the representatives of the Union inside the
Company have been elected. The secret ballot is the now
accepted way of trying to ensure democratic decisions and the
Union should have no difficulty in agreeing to its use and
having it seen that it is the method of confirming it in its
agreement with the Company.
Company Clause 5.3
"The number of shop stewards will be limited to approximately
one steward for each 100 Union employees or part thereof, per
shift, being one shop steward per shift.
Total 2 stewards. Employees will only be eligible for
election as shop stewards after completing 12 months
continuous service. After appointment each shop steward will
receive credentials signed by the Union together with a copy
of this Agreement".
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union proposes the following text "The number of shop
stewards will be limited to one per shift and one for day
workers, with the emphasis in the case of the latter on the
administrative grades. Total 3 stewards".
2. While the group of workers concerned is potentially small
at a maximum of 50-60 staff, they are clearly divided into two
main categories, i.e. administrative staff on days and
production and technical staff on two shifts (7-3; 3-11).
Three shop stewards are best suited to meet the members'
requirements given the spread of disciplines and of time.
3. The shop stewards on shifts are most likely to be
production or technical people who might not have the kind of
appreciation of problems besetting administrative grades who
for the most part, will be day workers. In the circumstances
three shop stewards is not unreasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. There are approximately 20 people in membership of the
Union. Two shop stewards are more than adequate to represent
such a number. Four people represent 170 in the No. 14
Branch. If the Union wishes it can ensure that one steward on
the late shift and one on the early shift can effectively
cover the membership including any on day work.
Company Clause 5.9(ii)G
"In respect of external protests such as tax marches etc.,
only the shop stewards shall attend, representing F.M.E. No
payment shall be due, and lost production must be made up, if
requested".
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Union proposes the following text "In respect of
external protests such as tax marches etc., every effort will
be made by the Union to minimise the impact of same on
production and, where at all possible, both Union and
Management will make arrangements that will protect production
and at the same time not inhibit the choice of Union members
to participate in any such protest".
2. External protests are very rare, so much so that they
would more properly be excluded from any Agreement, as they
are often occasions where emotions can be a factor. Tax
marches were often supported by employers who actually
encouraged the workforce to participate.