Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89888 Case Number: LCR12830 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: POLDYS FRESH FOODS LTD - and - SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's refusal to recognise the Union's right to negotiate on pay and conditions of employment for workers employed by the Company.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts the right of individual workers to join and
be represented by a Trade Union. The Court also acknowledges the
right of workers not to be members of a Trade Union if they so
choose. In this case, a minority of workers have opted to join
S.I.P.T.U., while a majority will continue in the house
association.
The management has argued that the existing worker/management
structures and procedures within Company cater adequately for its
industrial relations, that the number of workers wishing to be
represented by the Union is small and that the recognition of the
Union for negotiating purposes is unnecessary and would be
disruptive in the long term.
Despite the Company views the Court considers that the workers
have an ongoing choice as to whether their representational needs
are best catered for by Union or by the S.R.C. The Court further
considers that a realistic choice can only be made when there is a
recognised Union as an alternative to the S.R.C.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company concede the
Union's claim for recognition and the right to negotiate for its
members. But in order to avoid a leap-frogging industrial
relations situation, the Court also recommends that decisions by
the workers on matters of pay and conditions be determined by way
of aggregate secret ballot of all staff, both Union and S.R.C.
members.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89888 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12830
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: POLDYS FRESH FOODS LTD
and
SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's refusal to recognise the
Union's right to negotiate on pay and conditions of employment for
workers employed by the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates in Naas, Co Kildare. It
manufactures, sells and distributes a range of frozen food
products. It employs 60 full-time workers together with 20
part-timers. In November, 1989, the Union wrote to the Company
seeking a meeting to discuss pay and conditions of employment for
its workforce. 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 referred its claim to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. The Company declined an
invitation to attend. Accordingly, 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 27th February, 1990. The Union agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company as a manufacturing operation received an
Industrial Development Authority grant of #2.5m. Grant aid
terms stated that Management should "recognise the
constitutional right of Irish workers regarding trade union
membership and the right of a Union having a negotiating
licence under the Irish Trade Unions' Acts to carry on
negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of
employment". Article 40 of the Irish Constitution guarantees
the right of association. A number of workers who became
members of the Union were subjected to individual harassment
and pressure to leave the Union.
3. 2. The Social Charter of the E.C. implicitly calls for the
recognition of workers' trade union rights and collective
bargaining rights. The Irish Government, as a constituent
state within the E.C. and as current president of the E.C., is
both committed to and responsible for steering this charter
into community obligations.
3. The Labour Court has consistently in its recommendations
recommended to employers that they should recognise trade
unions for the purpose of negotiating pay and conditions of
employment. A recent recommendation to this effect i.e.
LCR12720 has been fully accepted by the company concerned and
has resulted in total unionisation of the plant, with employer
support.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company has never contested the right of individuals
to be members of a trade union. Since the company commenced
operations there have been individuals who were members of a
union. On occasions in the past, and strictly on an
individual basis, the company has dealt with trade union
officials. However, it is not company policy to recognise a
trade union for negotiating purposes where there are only a
relatively small number of workers who are members of the
union. The company is satisfied that the majority of workers
do not wish to have their interests represented by a trade
union.
2. It has always been a fundamental objective of the
Company to foster and encourage good relations directly with
its staff, without the involvement of any third party. Since
the Company commenced operations in 1982 everyone has worked
together to achieve this objective. In the past unions have
attempted to organise the workers but they have consistently
rejected such overtures.
3. There are established lines of communication in the
Company to ensure that workers have a voice. These include:-
(a) an open door policy which affords each employee
access to management
(b) a three stage grievance procedure and
(c) a Staff Representative Group, elected by the
employees, which meets regularly with management.
4. There are a number of clear reasons why the Labour Court
should not grant negotiating rights to the Union:-
(A) The overall long term Company objective is to
develop an Irish based food manufacturing group
through a commitment to the development of its
plant, its product and its employees.
(B) The Company believes that its success to date is
largely dependent on the good relationship that
exists on a one to one basis with its staff.
(C) The Company has a developed philosophy towards the
management of its people. This is underlined in
its approach to pay and conditions of employment.
For example, having regard to wage reviews, the
Company has in the past five years granted
increases well in excess of those negotiated
generally. Significant investment has also been
made in the training and development of staff and
all management have been developed from within the
Group. Canteen facilities and general working
conditions are also excellent.
(D) The majority of workers are fully supportive of the
Company's management philosophy and do not wish to
be represented by a trade union.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts the right of individual workers to join and
be represented by a Trade Union. The Court also acknowledges the
right of workers not to be members of a Trade Union if they so
choose. In this case, a minority of workers have opted to join
S.I.P.T.U., while a majority will continue in the house
association.
The management has argued that the existing worker/management
structures and procedures within Company cater adequately for its
industrial relations, that the number of workers wishing to be
represented by the Union is small and that the recognition of the
Union for negotiating purposes is unnecessary and would be
disruptive in the long term.
Despite the Company views the Court considers that the workers
have an ongoing choice as to whether their representational needs
are best catered for by Union or by the S.R.C. The Court further
considers that a realistic choice can only be made when there is a
recognised Union as an alternative to the S.R.C.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company concede the
Union's claim for recognition and the right to negotiate for its
members. But in order to avoid a leap-frogging industrial
relations situation, the Court also recommends that decisions by
the workers on matters of pay and conditions be determined by way
of aggregate secret ballot of all staff, both Union and S.R.C.
members.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
7th May, 1990 ----------------
A McG/U.S. Chairman