Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91265 Case Number: LCR13334 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN UNIVERSITY PRESS INTERNATIONAL LTD - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Dispute concerning the employment of Union Members.
Recommendation:
5. The present difficulties between the Company and the Union
date back to experiences in Dublin University Press and require a
period in which each side can re-establish confidence in the
attitude of the other. The Court considers that an industrial
relations solution requires protection for both sides during such
a period and accordingly recommends as follows:-
1. The Company should restore to the I.P.U. the
organisational rights they had in Dublin University
Press.
2. Where suitable applicants are not available for future
vacancies, the I.P.U. should co-operate fully with the
Company in ensuring staff requirements are met.
3. For a period of two years, both sides should agree that
where disputes are not resolved at earlier stages, they
should be subject to binding arbitration.
4. The registered agreement for the Printing Industry will
apply in the Company.
5. The position of the two non-IPU staff presently
employed by the Company should not be affected by these
arrangements.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91265 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13334
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN UNIVERSITY PRESS INTERNATIONAL LTD
(Represented by Irish Print Federation)
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the employment of Union Members.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Dublin University Press Ltd went into liquidation on 17th
January, 1991 and the present Company began trading shortly
afterwards from the same premises. The new Company employed 3
former workers (Union members) and 2 workers who were non-union.
4 former workers (all Union members) were not employed. The Union
served the Company with strike notice on 5th February 1991 and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 7th
February, 1991.
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on 13th February and the
Industrial Relations Officer proposed the following in a letter to
both sides of 14th February, 1991:-
"1. The company will recognize the IPU as the negotiating
agent for its members employed by the company.
2. The Registered Agreement for the Printing Industry will
apply in the company.
3. I note that the company has undertaken that it will
interview all IPU members who apply for any future
vacancies which may occur.
4. If the 2 recently recruited employees apply for
membership of the IPU, I would urge that their
applications be given favorably consideration."
3. The proposals were rejected by the Union and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on 20th May, 1991. A Labour Court investigation took place on
21st June, 1991 (details supplied).
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposals made at conciliation were unacceptable to
the Union as the organisational rights previously enjoyed
would be gone. The Company should recognise the Union as
representing production staff and the normal method of
employing staff should apply.
2. The Company is also seeking binding arbitration; this is
not a feature of agreements which the Union has with any
employer. The Union would have grave reservations about
entering into such an agreement with this Company. Following
the Conciliation Conference the Union put the following
proposals to the Company as a basis for settlement:-
"(i) The company will recognise the IPU as the negotiating
agent for its members employed by the company and
accept that all future employees must be members of
the IPU;
(ii) The Registered Agreement for the Printing Industry
will apply in the company;
(iii) I note that the company has undertaken that it will
interview all IPU members to apply for any future
vacancies which may occur and if suitable applicants
are not available the I.P.U. has undertaken to ensure
that the staffing needs of the company are met;
(iv) If the two recently recruited employees apply for
membership of the IPU I would urge that their
application be given favourable consideration.
The proposals were rejected by the Company.
3. The setting up of a new Company is an attempt by management to
reduce the staff and renege on its commitments on the question
of Union organisation. The workforce has been reduced on a
selective basis.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the old Company there was a history of industrial
relations difficulties (details supplied). The new Company is
anxious not to see a return to this type of situation. It is
not prepared to enter into an arrangement which gives
exclusive negotiation/recognition rights to any single Union.
It is therefore not prepared to take away employment from
workers who are not members of the Union. The Company feels
in the light of past experience that future disputes, if not
settled locally should be the subject of binding arbitration.
4. 2. The current financial state of the Company does not
allow it to re-employ all of its former workers.
Advertisements for the positions of paste-up artist and
compositor did not elicit any applications from former
employees.
3. The Company will only fill any future vacancy with the
person who in its opinion is correct for the job. The Company
finds the proposals achieved at Conciliation acceptable as a
basis for resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The present difficulties between the Company and the Union
date back to experiences in Dublin University Press and require a
period in which each side can re-establish confidence in the
attitude of the other. The Court considers that an industrial
relations solution requires protection for both sides during such
a period and accordingly recommends as follows:-
1. The Company should restore to the I.P.U. the
organisational rights they had in Dublin University
Press.
2. Where suitable applicants are not available for future
vacancies, the I.P.U. should co-operate fully with the
Company in ensuring staff requirements are met.
3. For a period of two years, both sides should agree that
where disputes are not resolved at earlier stages, they
should be subject to binding arbitration.
4. The registered agreement for the Printing Industry will
apply in the Company.
5. The position of the two non-IPU staff presently
employed by the Company should not be affected by these
arrangements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
1st July, 1991 ---------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman