Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91109 Case Number: LCR13226 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DATA PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the recognition of a shop steward by the Company.
Recommendation:
8. Having given careful consideration to all aspects of this
dispute and in particular to all past problems of employee
representation, which are now resolved, the Court is of the view
that both parties should accept that a new era of industrial
relations has commenced. The Court accordingly recommends as
follows:
(a) The Court notes the terms on which the named employee was
re-instated and considers that the Union should have
sought the removal of Clause 6 of the Agreement to
reinstate him prior to the holding of the local A.G.M.
(b) The Company accept that, the named employee who is
central to the dispute, has been elected by his fellow
employees as a representative to the S.I.P.T.U.
Committee, be allowed to act in that capacity.
(c) Whilst accepting that the claimant continue to hold the
position to which he was elected he and the Union agree
that he should not seek any further office for a 12 month
period.
(d) The Union and the Company meet during the 12 month period
to negotiate, subject to satisfactory operation of the
above arrangement, a removal of Clause 6 which would
comply with the aspirations set out in Clause 7 of the
Agreement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91109 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13226
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: DATA PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the recognition of a shop steward by the
Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been manufacturing in Ireland for over 26
years. It manufactures computer printers and printer supplies and
distributes these throughout Europe.
3. The worker here concerned was involved in a dispute with the
Company in 1979. The dispute revolved around the attempts to
introduce another union into the Company. The Company refused to
recognise this union as it had no negotiation agreement. Part of
an agreement to settle the dispute involved the re-instatement of
the worker here concerned under specific conditions. Clause 6 of
the Agreement to reinstate him states:-
"To accept that Data Products (Dublin) Limited will not in the
future recognise the worker (named) in any capacity as a
representative of any employee or group of employees save
such representation as is required from time to time on his
own behalf."
4. Following the dispute there were two groups of workers, a
"non-aligned" group and a unionised group. This situation was
eliminated in 1990 following the formation of S.I.P.T.U. with the
vast majority now in S.I.P.T.U. membership. The worker here
concerned was elected as a member of the incoming Union Committee
by his colleagues in May, 1990. The Union now wants him to be
recognised by Management as a worker's representative and to have
the old agreement set aside. The Company is not agreeable to this
maintaining that it wants all agreements entered into abided by
and this agreement should be no exception as it does not carry a
time limit.
5. The issue was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 12th October,
1990. As no agreement was reached the parties subsequently
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 1st March, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company's main concern with the "break away" or
"non-aligned" group, including the worker here concerned was
that they left the I.T.G.W.U. - the Union which had been
granted negotiating rights by the Company, on behalf of the
workers. The settlement terms agreed subsequent to the
dispute of 1979 included the clause "that the I.T.G.W.U. would
be the recognised Union to represent all hourly paid workers."
The break away group, including the worker here concerned,
have now returned to the Union which leaves any outstanding
issue regarding union recognition null and void. It is the
Union's view that no dispute arising out of 1979 now remains
as all matters have now been resolved.
2. The Company is now transferring the issue in dispute with
the non-aligned group to this Union in not recognising one of
its elected representatives.
3. The worker is already in receipt of paid time off to
attend monthly meetings in connection with the Health and
Safety and Social Committees as he is an elected worker
representative on these bodies.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker was re-employed in 1980 under clearly stated
terms and conditions which do not carry a time limit. The
Company has operated very much within the spirit of the
agreement particularly in regard to Clause 7 which reads "To
agree to take all possible steps to eliminate all traces of
discord and disharmony and to ensure the total absence of
reprisal and or victimisation. The Company on its part
pledges no less" by allowing him to sit on Sports and Social
and Safety Committees.
2. The Company has not denied the worker right of
association.
3. The dispute in 1979 affected many employees within the
Company besides the worker here concerned and those employees
who took industrial action. A significant majority of
employees continued to attend work and suffered considerable
turmoil as a result of the dispute (and in some cases
intimidation). The Company has a responsibility to be seen to
be fair to all its employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having given careful consideration to all aspects of this
dispute and in particular to all past problems of employee
representation, which are now resolved, the Court is of the view
that both parties should accept that a new era of industrial
relations has commenced. The Court accordingly recommends as
follows:
(a) The Court notes the terms on which the named employee was
re-instated and considers that the Union should have
sought the removal of Clause 6 of the Agreement to
reinstate him prior to the holding of the local A.G.M.
(b) The Company accept that, the named employee who is
central to the dispute, has been elected by his fellow
employees as a representative to the S.I.P.T.U.
Committee, be allowed to act in that capacity.
(c) Whilst accepting that the claimant continue to hold the
position to which he was elected he and the Union agree
that he should not seek any further office for a 12 month
period.
(d) The Union and the Company meet during the 12 month period
to negotiate, subject to satisfactory operation of the
above arrangement, a removal of Clause 6 which would
comply with the aspirations set out in Clause 7 of the
Agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
14th March, 1991. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.