Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91494 Case Number: LCR13489 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AURA EUROPEAN LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning union recognition.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has considered the views expressed by both
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court considers the Company should recognise the union in
respect of its members.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91494 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13489
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946 TO 1969
SECTION 20 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: AURA EUROPEAN Limited
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is part of the Etos Group of Companies,
is based at Annacotty Industrial Estate in Limerick since 1986.
It manufactures "link up" cables for the computer industry and
currently employs 100 people.
3. In April, 1991, the Union wrote to the Company seeking a
meeting to discuss pay and conditions of employment on behalf of
its members. No response was received and the Union sent a
further letter. As no reply was received, the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. The Company
declined an invitation to attend a conciliation conference.
4. The Union referred the question of union recognition 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:
5. 1. Recognition of the right of a union to represent its
members is standard in Irish industrial relations. It
is also a guaranteed right under the constitution.
2. This Union has a policy of dealing honourbly with
Companies where it has organised membership. This
policy is a matter of public record.
3. Some workers have sought the assistance of the Union
which indicates dissatisfaction with the Company's
inhouse procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company, when setting up in Ireland, decided
against forming an association with either an employer
or employee organisation. Instead its policy has been
to foster strong internal communications structures
capable of dealing adequately with all industrial
relations matters.
2. This philosophy has worked extremely well from both
the Company and staff viewpoint. Despite operating in
an extremely difficult market, employment levels have
been maintained and the pay and conditions of
employment are among the best in the industry.
3. There is no evidence of any interest among the vast
majority of the workforce in the matter of union
representation.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has considered the views expressed by both
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court considers the Company should recognise the union in
respect of its members.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
29th November, 1991 ------------------------
M.D./N.M Deputy Chairman