Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91277 Case Number: LCR13362 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BLANCHVAC LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. The Court regrets that the Company did not attend the hearing
to put forward its position regarding this claim. Its written
submissions received subsequent to the hearing did little to
advance the prospects of harmonious industrial relations in the
Company. Having considered the position, the Court recommends
that the Company recognise the Union for negotiations in respect
of its particular members.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91277 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13362
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: BLANCHVAC LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1981. It is a
manufacturing Company engaged in meat processing. There are
60 workers of whom 27 are classified as general workers.
Twenty of the general workers are members of the Union.
2. The claim was referred to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed
to be bound by the decision of the Court. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 14th June, 1991. The Company did
not attend the Labour Court investigation but forwarded a
submission on the dispute to the Court. The Company's
arguments have been extracted from that submission.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Recognition of the right of Unions to negotiate for their
members is standard in Irish industrial relations. Freedom of
association is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Irish
Constitution. The Labour Court has made recommendations in
support of this position in similar cases (details supplied).
2. 80% of the packers/general operatives employed by the
Company are members of the Union and are entitled to the
services of the Union in processing grievances. The Company
was made aware of the general workers' membership of the
Union on 29th February, 1991. The Union requested meetings
with the Company on matters relevant to to the employment of
its members. The Company has not met with the Union.
3. The Company has stated that the general operatives are
not seeking Union recognition. This is denied by the workers
involved. The Company is involved in the domestic wholesale
meat business. The Union has an agreement with the Dublin
Master Victualler Association (DMVA) which represents the vast
majority of wholesale and retail meat suppliers in the Dublin
area. The Company were previously members of the DMVA, yet
they refuse to concede the right of the Union to represent its
members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company understands fully that it cannot prevent
workers from becoming members of a trade union. It feels,
however, given the nature of the business, that it can operate
more efficiently in their absence. The majority of the
Company's workers do not wish to become members of a Trade
Union.
2. The Company has met with the workers without the
interference of a third party to discuss grievances. After
that meeting the workers informed management that they no
longer wished to be represented by a trade union. Management
is willing to sit down at any stage and discuss employees grievances. Thebe
is in the absence of a third party, such as a trade union. If
the Court grants Union recognition, the Company will be placed
in the unenviable position where it will have to negotiate
with 5 separate sets of workers.
3. The Company which is small and operating in a competitive
environment, cannot afford management time to negotiate with
an outside third party whose sole purpose is to better the
terms and conditions of employment of their members. The
Company cannot afford better terms or conditions of
employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court regrets that the Company did not attend the hearing
to put forward its position regarding this claim. Its written
submissions received subsequent to the hearing did little to
advance the prospects of harmonious industrial relations in the
Company. Having considered the position, the Court recommends
that the Company recognise the Union for negotiations in respect
of its particular members.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
______________________
25th July, 1991 Chairman.
J.F./J.C.