Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91561 Case Number: LCR13507 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: E.I. COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning Union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Company recognises the Union and
agrees to negotiate with it on behalf of its members in the
employment.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91561 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13507
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: E.I. COMPANY LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The present Company which manufactures smoke alarms, and
employs 230 workers, was formed in 1988 following a buyout by
local Management of the old General Electric (U.S.A.) owned E.I.
Company. The new Company recruited some workers from the former
Company. In April, 1991 the Union wrote to the Company seeking a
meeting to discuss Union recognition, the pay and conditions of
employment of a number of workers who had joined the Union. The
Company refused to attend a meeting. Subsequently the Union
referred the issue to the Labour Relations Commission but the
Company declined an invitation to attend a conciliation
conference. On the 15th August, 1991 the Union referred the
dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute in Limerick on
the 3rd December, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union represents a modest number of workers in the
Company (details supplied to the Court). It will disclose the
figures to the Company when formal Union recognition is
established. It is well established in industrial relations
practice that Companies recognise unions. Management must
recognise that the workers concerned have rights which cannot
be ignored. The Court has recommend in favour of Union
recognition in many similar claims.
2. It is normal practice in Union employments that Union dues
are deducted at source. As there is no financial cost to the
Company the Union requests the Court to recommend that the
Company concede this issue.
3. The current basic rate of pay, of the workers concerned
inclusive of the P.N.R. and 1st phase of the P.E.S.P. is £128
p.w. This rate does not compare favourably with comparable
employments in the area (details supplied to the Court). The
Union is not at present suggesting that the rates in the
Company be adjusted to these levels but Management should make
some effort to increase the rates.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The number of workers in the Union, as far as the Company
can ascertain, is very small. They are not representative of
the workforce as a whole. Union recognition would distort the
whole employee relations culture which so far has worked well
and to the benefit of the workforce. The vast majority of
workers in the Company have no interest in joining a Union or
in union recognition.
2. The Company cannot afford the administrative cost of union
deductions at source.
3. The Company operates in a very volatile and competitive
business where price erosion rather than price increases is
the norm. The Company's wage structure and the conditions of
employment enjoyed by the workers are consistent with the type
of business in which the Company is involved. The Company is
an indigenous Irish Company, which despite many setbacks since
1988, employs 230 workers. Comparisons with the remuneration
paid to workers in long established multi-national companies
is irrelevant. The Company's rates of pay compare more than
favourably with recently established indigenous and foreign
manufacturing industries, and is well above local service
industries. The Company will endeavour to increase wages when
the business can afford to do so.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Company recognises the Union and
agrees to negotiate with it on behalf of its members in the
employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
17th December, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.