Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91438 Case Number: LCR13464 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: GE SUPERBRASIVES IRELAND - and - MANUFACTURE SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 13 process control technicians concerning Union recognition and procedural agreement.
Recommendation:
4. The Court has considered the views of the Union in their oral
and written submission together with the correspondence from the
Company.
The Court in considering the matter only has the information
supplied by the Union on which to rely for its judgement since the
Company decided not to be represented at the hearing, and
consequently with the exception of a letter to the Court did not
put forward any other views.
The Court noted the concern of the workers over the security of
their jobs and accordingly given all the circumstances the Court
finds that the Company should recognise the union in respect of
its' members.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91438 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13464
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: GE SUPERBRASIVES IRELAND
AND
MANUFACTURE SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 13 process control
technicians concerning Union recognition and procedural agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union informed the Company on 12th July, 1991, that a
large number of the non-unionised process control technicians had
joined the Union and requested a meeting to negotiate a
recognition and procedure agreement. No reply was received from
the Company and on 23rd July, 1991, the Union wrote again to the
Company. The Company responded on 25th July, 1991, stating that
its policy in relation to all technical and professional employees
has always been to relate to each person on an individual basis,
that the Company has in place personnel practices, pay and
benefits at a superior level and that discussions with technical
staff confirmed this view. As a result the Company was not
prepared to depart from this policy. On 14th August, 1991, the
Union referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. Prior to Court's investigation on 10th September,
1991 the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
By letter dated 30th August, 1991, the Company informed the Court
that given the nature of the claim and the potential negative
impact on the future of the business, the Company would not be
represented at the Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. The Union represents 13 of the 15 technical staff. None of
these members were members of any other union nor is there
any single union agreement in operation in the Company. The
Union requests the Court to recommend that the Company
recognise the Union and negotiate with the Union, a
procedural agreement on behalf of its members.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court has considered the views of the Union in their oral
and written submission together with the correspondence from the
Company.
The Court in considering the matter only has the information
supplied by the Union on which to rely for its judgement since the
Company decided not to be represented at the hearing, and
consequently with the exception of a letter to the Court did not
put forward any other views.
The Court noted the concern of the workers over the security of
their jobs and accordingly given all the circumstances the Court
finds that the Company should recognise the union in respect of
its' members.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
7th November, 1991
B.O'N./M.O'C. Deputy Chairman