Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91145 Case Number: LCR13233 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: RIVER VALLEY PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Recognition of the Union for the purposes of negotiation and representation on behalf of its members and the dismissal of 11 workers.
Recommendation:
8. The Court has considered fully the submissions of the union
oral and written and the correspondence from the Company.
The Court expresses its regret that the Company did not see fit,
to attend the hearing to make its views known.
The Court in its deliberations considered the question of matters
being of subjudice raised by the Company in a telephone
conversation and in correspondence to the Court.
The Court would be loath to deal with issues which were the
subject of proceedings at the High Court.
The Court, however having considered the matter given its
understanding of the decision of the High Court sees no reason why
it should not proceed to deal with the issues referred to it by
the Union.
The court takes the view that the actions of the employer, in his
treatment of the workers concerned, are contrary to the normal
good practice and behaviour expected of any reasonable employer.
In all the circumstances the Court finds;
(1) The employer should recognise the Union in respect of its
members.
(2) In respect of the dismissal of the workers the Court
considers they were treated unfairly and should be reinstated
with immediate effect. Alternatively should any of the
workers consider that in the circumstances reinstatement is
an unacceptable option the union and the Company should
negotiate a reasonable compensation package.
In the event that the parties fail to agree a basis for
compensation the Court shall be prepared to make a recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91145 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13233
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: RIVER VALLEY PRODUCTS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Recognition of the Union for the purposes of negotiation and
representation on behalf of its members and the dismissal of 11
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is located in the Glasnevin Industrial
Estate, Dublin, is engaged in the manufacture of haberdashery
items. It carries on business on a wholesale and retail basis.
The company employed 17 full-time workers, 36 contract
merchandisers, 22 home contract workers and approximately 14
part-time workers. The part-time workers worked on a 17.50 hour per
week basis and are paid #2.75 per hour. These workers who are
members of the Union, constitute the majority of directly employed
operative workforce. Their service ranges from 3 months to 2
years.
3. In December, 1990 the workers were laid off for the
Christmas period and it was anticipated by the workers that they
would resume employment after Christmas. In January, 1991 some of
the workers returned to the Company's premises to collect money
due to them and to enquire as to when they would be resuming work.
They found that a number of young people had been recruited and
were engaged in the work at which they had been employed. On
enquiry, the workers were informed that the young people had been
recruited through F.A.S. The workers subsequently went to the
F.A.S. office to protest at, what they perceived to be, the
involvement of the Authority in filling their jobs. They were
informed that the Company had notified F.A.S. that it had a number
of vacancies for operatives at #1.50 an hour and notices to this
effect were posted up. F.A.S. then withdrew the notices and wrote
to the Company seeking an explanation about the vacancies.
4. The workers then joined the Union and sought its assistance.
The Union made numerous attempts to contact the Company but the
Company refused to respond. On the 11th January, 1991 the Union
served strike notice on the Company to expire on 21st January,
1991. The workers commenced picketing on that date. An
application was made by the Union to I.C.T.U. for an all out
picket. After considering the application an all out picket was
granted with effect from 24th January, 1991.
5. I.C.T.U. made unsuccessful efforts to contact the managing
director of the Company. Congress also contacted the Labour
Relations Commission to intervene in the dispute. A conciliation
conference was held on 31st January, 1991 which ended
inconclusively. The pickets were lifted during the course of the
conciliation conference and were resumed when the conciliation
conference ended.
6. On 7th February, 1991 the Company initiated High Court
proceedings seeking an injunction against the Union and its
members from picketing the Company's premises. (Details supplied
to the Court). The application was rejected and the picketing is
continuing. On the 4th March, 1991 the workers were dismissed
from their employment. The Union referred the issue 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 Court's recommendation.
The Company, by letter dated the 14th March, 1991, informed the
Court that it would not be attending or be represented at the
Court hearing as it considered the matters being dealt with to be
subjudice.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. It is well accepted that workers have a right to belong
to a trade union and be represented by a trade union in
dealing with their employer. The workers in this case are
being denied that right by the Company.
2. There is no justification for the dismissal of the
workers here concerned. It is significant that the part-time
workers were replaced immediately following the announcement
by the Minister for Labour of his intention to extend
statutory protection to part-time workers. Workers have a
right not to be unfairly or arbitrarily dismissed from their
employment. That right extends to part-time workers also,
even in cases where their employer deliberately keeps them
below the hours threshold for statutory protection against
unfair dismissal.
3. The Employer is engaged in exploiting vulnerable young
school leavers. They are working for #1.25 per hour less
than the workers here concerned, doing exactly the same work.
The availability of cheap exploitable labour can not be
regarded as justification for the dismissal of these workers.
4. The Company has refused to communicate with the Union in
any way. The workers involved in this dispute are members of
the Union and are entitled to have the services of the Union
in processing their grievance. The most basic requirement of
civilised industrial relations practice obliges the Employer
to at least discuss these grievances with the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court has considered fully the submissions of the union
oral and written and the correspondence from the Company.
The Court expresses its regret that the Company did not see fit,
to attend the hearing to make its views known.
The Court in its deliberations considered the question of matters
being of subjudice raised by the Company in a telephone
conversation and in correspondence to the Court.
The Court would be loath to deal with issues which were the
subject of proceedings at the High Court.
The Court, however having considered the matter given its
understanding of the decision of the High Court sees no reason why
it should not proceed to deal with the issues referred to it by
the Union.
The court takes the view that the actions of the employer, in his
treatment of the workers concerned, are contrary to the normal
good practice and behaviour expected of any reasonable employer.
In all the circumstances the Court finds;
(1) The employer should recognise the Union in respect of its
members.
(2) In respect of the dismissal of the workers the Court
considers they were treated unfairly and should be reinstated
with immediate effect. Alternatively should any of the
workers consider that in the circumstances reinstatement is
an unacceptable option the union and the Company should
negotiate a reasonable compensation package.
In the event that the parties fail to agree a basis for
compensation the Court shall be prepared to make a recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th March, 1991 Tom McGrath
M.D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman