Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90445 Case Number: LCR13012 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CONCURRENT COMPUTER (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (M.S.F. |
Claim by the Union for the right to negotiate closure terms and conditions.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Company agrees to negotiate with
M.S.F. either separately or jointly on the terms of the severance
package for its members who may become redundant, and the
conditions under which those who may be temporarily retained will
be required to remain at work.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90445 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13012
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: CONCURRENT COMPUTER (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (M.S.F.)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the right to negotiate closure terms
and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Cork and has been in operation for
just over nine years. In July, 1990 the Company announced that a
decision had been taken by the U.S.A. parent Company to totally
close the Cork plant. It was subsequently decided to retain a
number of technicians to continue maintenance work. There are
about sixty general workers employed by the Company who are
represented by the Services Industrial Professional Trade Union
(S.I.P.T.U.) which is recognised by the Company. The Union is not
officially recognised by the Company and represents about 70
technical and clerical staff, some of whom may be retained by the
Company on maintenance work. The Union claimed the right to
negotiate on a severance package for those members who may be made
redundant and for those who may be retained on maintenance work.
The Company refused official recognition to the Union. The Union
referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The hearing took place on 23rd
August, 1990. Prior to the hearing the Union agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has always refused official negotiating rights
to the staff group. However it has met with the Union on a
number of occasions to negotiate wages and conditions.
2. Now that the Company is closing it is essential that the
Union is involved in negotiating severance terms for its
members. It is also important because most of the workers who
will be retained on maintenance work will be members of the
Union. S.I.P.T.U. have made it clear that they would welcome
our Union's involvement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has never had a recognition agreement, or any
other relationship, with the Union.
2. The Company has a comprehensive agreement with S.I.P.T.U.
Negotiations on severance terms have not been concluded with
S.I.P.T.U. It is the Company's intention to apply the same
severance terms to all categories of employees.
3. The involvement of a second Union would not be in the best
interests of the Company or its employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Company agrees to negotiate with
M.S.F. either separately or jointly on the terms of the severance
package for its members who may become redundant, and the
conditions under which those who may be temporarily retained will
be required to remain at work.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
7th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.