Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91389 Case Number: LCR13488 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BIJUR LUBRICATING IRELAND LTD - and - MSF |
Dispute concerning Union recognition.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the views expressed by the
parties. The Court has noted that organisation and
representation in the Company is specifically in respect of the
Production staff and does not include representation on behalf
of the clerical grades.
In the circumstances the Court considers the Company should
recognise Manufacturing Science Finance on behalf of its staff
members.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91389 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13488
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969
PARTIES BIJUR LUBRICATING IRELAND LIMITED
(represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which was founded in 1969 is engaged in the
production of lubricating pumps and deep hole drills. It
currently employs seventy one people of whom fifty-four are
manual workers, the remaining seventeen are staff. Eighty per
cent of the manual workers are members of Services Industrial
Technical Professional Union. Traditionally the staff members
have not been unionised.
3. In May, 1991, the Union wrote to the Company seeking a
meeting to discuss a problem concerning one of its staff
members. The Company declined to meet with the Union on the
basis that a procedural agreement was already in place giving
sole negotiating rights to S.I.P.T.U. A subsequent request for
a meeting was also declined by the Company. The Union then
referred the issue to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on 12th November
1991. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As the staff members have no representation and
S.I.P.T.U. have no objection to this Union
representing them the Court is asked to recommend that
the Company recognise this Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company has no difficulty with union recognition.
It is not in a position to deal with two Unions as it
finds this an archaic and unnecessary administrative
burden. Therefore if the workers concerned wish to be
represented by a Union the Company would prefer that
they be represented by S.I.P.T.U.
2. Traditionally these workers have always been non union
and a good relationship exists between management and
staff. Communication takes place on an individual
basis.
3. Staff have never approached management directly
concerning union representation.
4. Wages and conditions of employment of staff are
amongst the best in the industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has considered the views expressed by the
parties. The Court has noted that organisation and
representation in the Company is specifically in respect of the
Production staff and does not include representation on behalf
of the clerical grades.
In the circumstances the Court considers the Company should
recognise Manufacturing Science Finance on behalf of its staff
members.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
----------------------
28th November 1991
M.D./N.M. Deputy Chairman