Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90410 Case Number: LCR13018 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: STEEL COMPANY OF IRELAND LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions made by the
parties. It is the view of the Court that the workers concerned
should if they are to be represented, be members of one Union and
the Court calls on M.S.F. to arrange to clarify the position of
representation through the disputes procedures of the I.C.T.U.
In so far as recognition is concerned the Court recommends that
once the issue of representation has been clarified the Company
should recognise a Union in respect of the workers who are
members.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90410 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13018
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: STEEL COMPANY OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 29th May, 1990 the Union wrote to the Company requesting a
meeting to discuss recognition. On 11th June, 1990 the Union
again wrote to the Company requesting a response and stating that
if no such response was received the matter would be referred to
the Labour Court. On 25th June, 1990 the Union referred the
matter to the Labour Court, arising out of which the Company was
invited to attend a conciliation conference. No response was
received from the Company and on 18th July, 1990 the Union
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation of
the Court. The Court investigated the dispute on 20th August,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is part of the British Steel Corporation and
the Union has negotiating rights in various companies within
the Corporation, including at least two other companies in
Ireland. The Union has had applications from the vast
majority of staff in the Company (details supplied to the
Court) and there is no reason why the Company should delay
discussions with the Union on wages and conditions for our
members. On 15th August, 1990 the Company circulated a letter
to the staff asking each person to fill in a form stating
whether or not they were in membership of the Union. The
Company also stated in the letter that it had tried
unsuccessfully to obtain information from the Union on the
level of membership. However, the Company has never
approached the Union to obtain details of membership. If the
Company had done so the Union would have had no hesitation in
justifying its statement in its letter of 29th May, 1990
stating that the Union had in membership the majority of the
staff. It is reasonable to assume that because the Company
circulated the form/letter on 15th August, 1990 it was
prepared to recognise the Union if it had the majority in
membership. The Union is not seeking exclusive negotiating
rights for staff and is only asking to negotiate on behalf of
our members, which represent the majority of staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On 29th May, 1990 the Union submitted a claim for
recognition indicating that the majority of staff were in
membership. The Company's attempts to verify the number of
employees in membership were unsuccessful as both the Union
and the employees were not prepared to divulge the names of
the members. There was, and still is, a recognition agreement
in existence with I.D.A.T.U. for staff employees and the
Company is not prepared to recognise two Unions for the same
category of employee as this would be an unsatisfactory
arrangement from the industrial relations point of view. The
fact that the Company has a recognition agreement with
I.D.A.T.U. demonstrates that it is prepared to recognise a
Union where such recognition is justified. However, due to
the lack of clarity concerning the workers' membership of
I.D.A.T.U. or the Union the Company was unable to deal with
this claim.
2. The Company feels that the Union's referral of this matter
to the Labour Court was premature and that the Company was not
given the information or the opportunity prior to the referral
to deal factually with the claim. The Company has recently
been taken over by the British Steel Corporation and a general
manager has not yet been appointed. The general manager looks
after all personnel matters and it is expected that a general
manager will be appointed by the end of September. In an
effort to establish the true position regarding Union
membership the Company is organising a secret ballot to give
the workers concerned an opportunity to indicate their
membership of I.D.A.T.U. or M.S.F. on a confidential basis.
This information will allow the incoming general manager to
assess the Union's claim on a factual basis. The Company is
of the opinion that a recommendation at this stage would not
be in the interests of good industrial relations and might
even have detrimental consequences. The Company also feels
that it would be unrealistic to expect it to make a decision
of this importance in the absence of a general manager. The
Company therefore requests that consideration of this matter
be deferred until 22nd October, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions made by the
parties. It is the view of the Court that the workers concerned
should if they are to be represented, be members of one Union and
the Court calls on M.S.F. to arrange to clarify the position of
representation through the disputes procedures of the I.C.T.U.
In so far as recognition is concerned the Court recommends that
once the issue of representation has been clarified the Company
should recognise a Union in respect of the workers who are
members.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________________
11th September, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.