Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89438 Case Number: LCR12563 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MASTERCARE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for recognition of its right to represent and negotiate on behalf of its members employed by the Company.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the Company did not respond to the
Court's invitation to attend the hearing. The Court recommends
that the Company recognise the Union in respect of the employees
it represents.The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89438 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12563
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: MASTERCARE LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for recognition of its right to represent
and negotiate on behalf of its members employed by the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the repair of electrical goods
and employs nineteen workers. In early March, 1989, the Union
organised four of these workers. A number of weeks later one of
the Union's members was dismissed and the Union sought a meeting
to discuss Union membership and conditions of employment. The
Company responded that the majority of workers had indicated that
they did not wish to have Union representation, however, should
they request it at a later stage the Company would be available
for discussions. On 1st June, 1989, the Union referred the
matter to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Court hearing on 30th June, 1989, was adjourned to allow the
parties attend the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
However, the Company subsequently declined to attend a
conciliation conference .On 11th August, 1989, the Union again
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act,1969. Prior to a Court hearing on
1st September, 1989, the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Company did not attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company do not see any need or obligation to recognise
the Union's right to represent its members unless all the
workforce are in the Union. The Union understands that the
Company has indicated to the workforce that membership of the
Union could damage the employer/employee relationship.
2. The Union is seeking a recommendation that the Company
recognise the Union's right to represent those of the Company's
workers who wish to remain with the Union, regardless of the
fact that they constitute a minority of the workers at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court notes that the Company did not respond to the
Court's invitation to attend the hearing. The Court recommends
that the Company recognise the Union in respect of the employees
it represents.The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
18th September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.