Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91137 Case Number: LCR13234 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: PHILIP WARWICK & CO. LIMITED - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Union recognition.
Recommendation:
3. The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union
without further delay and negotiate with it on issues of concern
to its members.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91137 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13234
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PHILIP WARWICK & CO. LIMITED
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 1990 eight of the workers employed in the Company
joined the Union. On 15th January, 1991 the Union wrote to the
Company informing it of the names of seven of the workers who had
joined the Union and requesting a meeting to discuss Union
recognition. (The Company maintains that it did not receive this
letter at that time). A meeting subsequently took place between
the parties on 31st January, 1991 at which the Company stated that
it would be taking advice on the matter and would respond to the
Union by 11th February, 1991. On 12th February, 1991 the Company
wrote to the Union stating that it could not yet let it know the
Compaony's decision on the matter. On 15th February, 1991 the
Union referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission and
informed the Company of this, the Company was subsequently invited
to attend a conciliation conference. On 26th February, 1991 the
Union wrote to the Company stating that due to the dismissal of
one of its members on 22nd February, 1991 and the Company's
refusal to recognise the Union it was issuing one week's notice of
industrial action to take effect from 5th March, 1991 (the members
of this Union withdrew their labour on 5th March, 1991). On 27th
February, 1991 the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court
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 19th March, 1991. A letter
recommendation issued to the parties on 20th March, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Although the Company maintains that it never received the
Union's letter of 15th January, 1991 two workers saw the
letter on the day on which it was delivered. On 29th January,
1991 a worker who had joined the Union was given dismissal
notice and is now taking an unfair dismissals case against the
Company. On 22nd February, 1991 the Union's shop steward was
given two weeks' pay in lieu of notice and dismissed without
being given any reason for his dismissal, although in January
he had been congratulated on his work and was given a wage
increase. He is also taking an unfair dismissal case against
the Company. In December, 1990 when the Union initially
sought recognition eight workers were members (which
represents a majority of workers in the Company) however,
since then the Company has sacked two of them, and taken on
other people. The Company should recognise the Union and
start negotiations in order to resolve the matter as soon as
possible.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not recall at any stage having refused to
recognise the Union or advising the Industrial Relations
Officer that it was not attending a conciliation conference.
Prior to the Company being in a position to give a formal
response, the Company understands the matter was out of the
Industrial Relations Officer's hands as he had been advised
that industrial action was imminent. In the Company's view
this negated the need to enter into conciliation talks on the
subject of recognition. In the Company's view the Union's
decision to take industrial action was unreasonable. As a
result of this action six and not eight I.P.U. members are on
strike. The facts of the matter are that while the Company
was deliberating over a response unreasonable actions were
instituted by a third party.
2. The Union's obvious involvement in the two claims for
unfair dismissal also leads the Company to believe that
negotiating with such an unreasonable third party would do
nothing to improve the employee/company relationship. The
Company is a good and conscientious employer. The Company
acknowledges the right of workers to be members of a union.
However, the Company does not intend to enter into any formal
agreement with this Union on the grounds that each and every
employee is appraised on set criteria that cannot be
recognised by any global agreement. The Company will consider
the findings of the Labour Court and then give the Union
formal notification of its intentions for the future on the
issue of recognition.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union
without further delay and negotiate with it on issues of concern
to its members.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
28th March, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.