Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91317 Case Number: LCR13470 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: NATIONAL PEN LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning Union recognition.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has fully considered the views expressed by both
parties in the oral and written submissions.
The Court is seriously disturbed at the incidence of this type of
dispute. Generally, industrial relations problems are solved by
agreement between the parties. Essential to the achievement of
agreements between employers and workers and their representatives
is the need of both sides, employers and workers, to recognise the
right of the other to be present on equal and independent terms.
Denial of the right of the employees to be represented by the
Union of their choice is likely to lead to hostility and mistrust
and is unlikely to lead to the development of attitudes of
co-operation and reasonableness. Accordingly it is the view of
the Court that in this case the Company should recognise the Union
on behalf of its members in the Production Department.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91317 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13470
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: NATIONAL PEN LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is American based, set up its operations in
Dundalk in 1987. It manufactures and assembles pens for export to
the European Market. It currently employs 118 people of whom 106
are full-time.
3. In December, 1990, the Union wrote to the Company requesting a
meeting to discuss the issue of union recognition as it had a
number of production workers in membership. A number of meetings
were held, the last on 4th July, 1991. At this meeting the
Company informed the Union that the employees did not want a Union
and that in line with Corporate wide policy, the Company would not
recognise the Union.
4. The Union referred the issue to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held in
Dundalk on 8th October, 1991. The Union agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company does not have the right to adopt the
American owner's policy of non-recognition of the Union in
Ireland, where, the workers have a Constitutional right to
union membership.
2. It would be in the Company's and the workers' best
interests if the Company and Union were to get together and
put in place a comprehensive productivity agreement.
3. The Union does not accept the Company's contention that
the in-house staff committee can adequately represent and
negotiate on behalf of the workers. This committee was put in
place by Management and as such is seen as an extension of
management. In addition the Committee lacks the expertise and
resources of an established Union.
5. 4. The Union's claim for recognition applied to production
workers only, 50 of whom (out of a total of 66) are in
membership. Accordingly, the Court is asked to recommend in
the Union's favour.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. There is an Employee works Committee which has been in
existence for the past two years and has successfully
negotiated a number of issues on behalf of the workers
(details supplied to the Court). In setting up this Committee
the Company accepted the wishes of the majority of the
workforce.
2. The Company does not see the need for Union recognition
as in addition to the Employee Committee, there are also
mechanisms for dealing with disciplinary and grievance
hearings which work to the satisfaction of all concerned.
3. The Company operates in a very difficult market and
needs flexibility to react quickly to international market
fluctuations and exchange rates. To have to deal with the
Union in addition to the staff association would put
constraints on the Company's ability to compete effectively.
4. The Company, in accordance with good industrial
relations policy, met with the Union twice and outlined its
position and Company Corporate policy regarding Union
recognition.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has fully considered the views expressed by both
parties in the oral and written submissions.
The Court is seriously disturbed at the incidence of this type of
dispute. Generally, industrial relations problems are solved by
agreement between the parties. Essential to the achievement of
agreements between employers and workers and their representatives
is the need of both sides, employers and workers, to recognise the
right of the other to be present on equal and independent terms.
Denial of the right of the employees to be represented by the
Union of their choice is likely to lead to hostility and mistrust
and is unlikely to lead to the development of attitudes of
co-operation and reasonableness. Accordingly it is the view of
the Court that in this case the Company should recognise the Union
on behalf of its members in the Production Department.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
20th November, 1991 --------------
M.D./U.S. Deputy Chairman