Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90320 Case Number: LCR13109 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MOLEX S.A. - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the views expressed
by the union in the oral and written submission.
The Court took account of all the issues raised by the
representatives in attendance and the Company views expressed in a
letter to the Court. It was with regret the Court noted the
Company were not represented at the hearing. In all the
circumstances in this case it is the view of the Court that
further efforts should be made to discuss the issue with the
members and the Company or their representatives with a view to
resolution at local level.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90320 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13109
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: MOLEX S.A.
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union claims that it has had a small number of workers in
the Company in membership for some years but that recently this
number has reached thirty. Following a meeting of members on the
27th January, 1990, the Union sought representation and
negotiating rights. The Company responded on the 12th February
rejecting the claim. Following a further unsuccessful attempt to
get the Company to change its position, the Union referred the
matter to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 30th
April, 1990. As the Company declined an invitation to attend a
conciliation conference, the Union referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, agreeing to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Limerick on the 21st August, 1990. The
Company did not attend but wrote to the Court outlining its
position on the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants are determined to be represented by the
Union and are determined that their Employer should recognise
this fact in the interest of good industrial relations. They
are being denied the basic right of having the representation
of their choice. Furthermore, a lot of dissatisfaction has
been expressed at Company procedures/practices that impinge
upon their jobs and conditions of employment. Some decisions
of Management which affect them are arbitrary and unfair.
3. 2. Molex is a Multi-National Company engaged in the
manufacture of inter-connection systems and it has plants in
20 countries. It employs over 200 people in its Shannon
factory. A company of its size and with its resources should
not deprive its employees of access to professional advice and
representation in matters that vitally affect their working
lives.
3. The Labour Court in similar disputes has consistently
recommended that the employer should recognise the trade union
representing the workers where the workers or a number of them
have exercised their right to associate (details supplied to
the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since its establishment at Shannon in 1972, Molex S.A. has
dealt with employee relations in accordance with best
international practice. Management and employees have worked
together to build a positive working environment which is
responsive and open to addressing the needs of all who work at
Molex. The fruits of this co-operation are visible in that
today Molex employs some 300 people at its Shannon facility
and that it continues to grow against a background of tough
international competition.
2. Management operates an "open door policy" which allows all
employees to present their individual grievances and problems.
In addition it has a formal grievance procedure which is
clearly set out in its employee handbook, a copy of which is
given to all employees on their first day of employment with
the Company. On a collective level there exists an elaborate
communications structure, through which senior plant
management meet all employees on a monthly basis.
3. The Irish Distributive and Administrative Trade Union is
wholly inappropriate to the operations of Molex S.A. Molex is
a high-tech manufacturer of electronic components and the
nature of the work involved is very different from the
categories of worker normally represented by IDATU, in the
distributive trades. Accordingly, to recognise IDATU would
not be in the interests of either the Company or its employees
(including those who are members of IDATU) either now or in
the future.
4. IDATU is unrepresentative of the Molex workforce. At its
height of popularity, it enjoyed the support of some 38
employees, however, Management is reliably informed that that
level of support has now declined to less than ten. Clearly
IDATU does not represent anything approaching a significant
minority of the Molex employees and for this reason also the
Company has chosen not to concede recognition of negotiation
rights to them.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the views expressed
by the union in the oral and written submission.
The Court took account of all the issues raised by the
representatives in attendance and the Company views expressed in a
letter to the Court. It was with regret the Court noted the
Company were not represented at the hearing. In all the
circumstances in this case it is the view of the Court that
further efforts should be made to discuss the issue with the
members and the Company or their representatives with a view to
resolution at local level.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___6th__December,__1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman