Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91207 Case Number: LCR13305 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: PAT THE BAKER LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for Union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case,
recommends that the Company recognise S.I.P.T.U.'s right to
negotiate with it on behalf of its members in the plant at Cherry
Orchard Industrial Estate, Dublin 10.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91207 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13305
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: PAT THE BAKER LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 54 workers including managerial staff at
its bakery and distribution business at Cherry Orchard Industrial
Estate Dublin 10. By February 19th 1991, 18 workers had applied
for and were granted membership of the Union. On the 19th
February the Union wrote to the Company and requested a meeting to
discuss union recognition. The Company in a letter dated 19th
March, 1991 declined to meet the Union stating that as a matter of
policy it pursued a line of direct negotiation with employees
through a Works Committee without the involvement of third
parties. The Union then requested that the issue be referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission but
the Company refused to attend a conciliation conference.
Subsequently 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. A Court hearing
was held on the 23rd May, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This Union is the only union involved in the dispute.
Recognition of the right of unions to negotiate on behalf of
their members is standard in industrial relations throughout
the country. Freedom of association is a fundamental right
guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court has, in many
similar cases, recommended in support of such claims (details
supplied).
2. A majority of the production and distribution workers
employed by the Company are members of the Union and are
entitled to have the services of the Union in processing
grievances. The most basic requirement of civilised
industrial relations practice, obliges the employer to at
least discuss these grievances with the Union.
3. The Company has stated that agreement has been reached
with workers to have a Works Committee with sole negotiating
rights in line with practice in the main Company plant in
Granard. The Works Committee was only introduced after the
workers concerned joined the Union and is nothing more than a
device to attempt to legitimise a refusal to recognise the
Union. The Works Committee is heavily biased in favour of
the Company and is inadequate.
4. It is well accepted that workers have a right to belong
to a Trade Union and be represented by that union in dealing
with their employer. It is abundantly clear that the workers
concerned are being denied that right by the Company. There
is no moral or legal justification for the Company's
attitude.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Legitimate representation has been provided through the
Works Committee and it is functioning to the satisfaction of
both workers and Management and the Company has exercised its
own legitimate rights and has not infringed any right of its
workers, constitutional or otherwise. The Company recognises
the right of individuals to join any union of their choosing
but does not accept that it is obliged to recognise any union
for the purpose of negotiation.
2. In facilitating the setting up of in house representation
structures the Company has accepted the wishes of the
majority of its workers. This has been done in a democratic
manner and is consistent with good industrial relations
practice. The mechanism is properly constituted and is
working efficiently and producing results acceptable to
workers and Management.
3. The Company has negotiated on all substantive and
procedural issues raised within the representative structure
and a number of concessions have been achieved by the Works
Committee. The Committee has also provided representation on
disciplinary issues. To date there has been no dispute that
has not been resolved internally.
4. The Company has included recognition of the Works
Committee in an agreement, as the sole negotiating body for
the workers of Pat the Baker. This is normal practice in
Ireland and certainly something which trade unions have
sought where they have representation rights. The Company
also included this provision to prevent a situation arising
where there would be more than one body representing a
specific category of worker. This provision is part of the
formal agreements with the Works Committee and the Company
does not intend to change it.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case,
recommends that the Company recognise S.I.P.T.U.'s right to
negotiate with it on behalf of its members in the plant at Cherry
Orchard Industrial Estate, Dublin 10.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th June, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman