Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90608 Case Number: LCR13146 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: GROVE TURKEYS LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union's
right to represent those employees in Grove Turkeys Limited/Kerry
Group PLC which it was has in membership.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90608 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13146
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: GROVE TURKEYS LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 5th September, 1990 the Union wrote to the Company stating
that it had organised a number of production workers into the
Union and requesting a meeting to discuss Union recognition. On
27th September, 1990 the Union referred the matter to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. The Company declined an
invitation to attend a conciliation conference and on 22nd
October, 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 18th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Company became part of the Kerry Co-operative
Group the Union had a meeting with the Group Personnel
Director who indicated that the Company had no difficulty in
recognising the Union. It was therefore understood from that
meeting that the Union would and could organise any workers
in this Company who wanted to be members of a union, with the
Company's approval. However, the workers at a general meeting
informed the Union that local management had expressed
hostility to the notion of having a Union representing the
views of the workers. The Company established a Works
Committee with representatives from the workforce. However
the workers discovered very quickly that such a Committee had
no real mandate or power to change or influence management
decisions.
2. The Company has incorporated into each workers' conditions
and contract of employment a document relating to union
recognition (details supplied to the Court). However, the
workers had no real say or influence in the drafting and
intent of the document which is an inherited legacy from the
previous owner of the Company who made no secret of his
dislike of unions. The previous owner agreed with the Union
that when the workers decided in greater numbers to join the
Union he would honour their wishes. However, this Company has
thrown out that commitment by incorporating the Union
recognition document into the workers' conditions of
employment. It is the Union's belief that the Union and the
Company could negotiate a comprehensive agreement which would
compliment and assist the Company's efforts in the market
place while at the same time giving the workers balanced and
fair representation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company understands that the vast majority of workers
are not interested in joining the Union. The Company
understands the workers' right to join unions. However in the
house agreement from the previous Company the vast majority of
workers decided against joining a union and it was agreed that
only if the majority of workers wanted to join would a union
be recognised and then all workers would join it.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union's
right to represent those employees in Grove Turkeys Limited/Kerry
Group PLC which it was has in membership.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
11th January, 1991. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.