Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89812 Case Number: LCR12720 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TIMBERCRAFT LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's refusal to recognise the Union's right to for negotiate on pay and conditions of employment in respect of its members employed by the Company.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties
and finds that the I.T.G.W.U. should be recognised by the Company
in respect of employees who are in membership of the Union. That
the Company and the Union should enter discussions as soon as
possible with a view to agreeing a Comprehensive Agreement
acceptable to the members of the Union and meeting the needs of
the Company.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89812 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12720
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TIMBERCRAFT LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's refusal to recognise the
Union's right to for negotiate on pay and conditions of employment
in respect of its members employed by the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. Timbercraft Limited is a process manufacturing timber plant
based in Newbridge providing a finished product to the furniture
trade both in Ireland and abroad. It employs approximately 100
people.
3. The Union wrote to the Company in September, 1989 seeking a
meeting to discuss pay and conditions of its members. The Company
replied that such a meeting would be inappropriate as there was an
internal structure in place for dealing with such matters. The
Union then referred its claim to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. The Company declined an invitation to attend a
conciliation conference. The Union referred the matter to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969. A Court hearing was
held on 29th December, 1989. The Union agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union wishes to enter into negotiations with the
Company on pay, annual leave, working week and health and
welfare (details supplied to the Court) and has served a claim
in connection with same. The Company has exercised its right
to join an employers union while at the same time frustrating
the rights of its employees by refusing to recognise their
union.
2. The Court is asked to recommend that the Company establish
a general operative rate equivalent to the average basic rate
within Kildare County of #155 per 39 hour week with pro rata
adjustments for learners and skilled operatives. The present
rates payable (details supplied to the Court) are way out of
line obtaining both within the timber industry and the
locality. The Union is also seeking the introduction of 20
days annual leave which would bring the holiday entitlements
up to the norm for this area. In addition the Union is also
seeking the introduction of a 39 hour week. As regards health
and welfare the Union is seeking the introduction of proper
environmental controls regarding dust control, extraction,
movement of large material and training in respect of safety
handling within a highly accident prone environment.
3. The Company has received I.D.A. grant aid and an implicit
condition of receipt of such aid is that an Employer must
recognise workers rights and the exercise of those rights with
Unions holding a negotiating licence.
4. There were no procedures in place until the Union
contacted the Company. The Company then decided to set up a
staff Committee and representatives were picked; one from each
section of the factory. An Agreement on wages, conditions of
employment and procedures was placed before them which they
signed. None of the workers outside of the Committee saw or
had a chance to vote on the Agreement. It is the Union's view
that the Agreement is biased in favour of the Company.
5. The imperative need for a Union is most obvious in this
case. The pay and conditions of employment of the workers
concerned leave a lot to be desired (details supplied to the
Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company feels that there is some misunderstanding of
the situation with the Union. Employees in the Company are
represented by a Staff Committee, and the Company is not aware
of a dispute with the Committee over the matters mentioned.
There are problems which are being discussed with the
Committee and which are in the process of been resolved.
2. The Committee raised the matter of pay and conditions and
as a result the Company hired a management consultant and an
industrial engineer who are dealing with all such matters on
behalf of the Company.
3. The Company and Staff Committee have recently signed a
comprehensive staff agreement which goes a long way towards
organising suitable procedures and includes such items as
grievance procedures for employees problems with recourse to
the services of the Labour Court if necessary.
4. The workers in the factory have not indicated to the
Company that they wish to be represented by the Union. It is
also the Company's understanding that the Union has not got a
substantial membership within the factory. When and if the
workers indicate to the Company that they wish to be
represented by a Union then the Company will negotiate with
the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties
and finds that the I.T.G.W.U. should be recognised by the Company
in respect of employees who are in membership of the Union. That
the Company and the Union should enter discussions as soon as
possible with a view to agreeing a Comprehensive Agreement
acceptable to the members of the Union and meeting the needs of
the Company.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
29th January, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.