Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91288 Case Number: LCR13397 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union concerning Union recognition and Procedural Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that there is no agreement in existence
in the Company which gives any union sole negotiating rights.
Having considered the submissions, the Court recommends that the
Company recognise M.S.F.'s right to negotiate on behalf of those
members of staff which it has in membership.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91288 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13397
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning Union recognition and Procedural
Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is based in Cork, is engaged in chemical
manufacturing and marketing of ethical and animal health products.
It has a workforce of 86. In 1991, prior to its establishment in
Cork, the Company entered into a pre-production agreement with 4
unions and it is a condition of employment that hourly-paid
workers become members of one of these unions. The factory
operatives are represented by S.I.P.T.U. and the craftsmen are
represented by A.E.U., E.T.U. and N.E.E.T.U. The Company also has
a Marketing Division comprising 13 people, 8 of whom are sales
representatives. In February, 1988, the Union informed the
Company that the sales representatives had joined the Union and
requested a meeting to establish recognition and negotiate a
procedural agreement. The Company declined to meet with the
Union. The matter lay dormant for approximately 2 years pending
discussions on all grievances between the Company and the sales
representatives. In Novembr, 1990, the Union again requested a
meeting to discuss recognition and a procedural agreement,
however, despite correspondence no meeting took place. On 31st
May, 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 the Court's
investigation of the matter on 21st August, 1991, in Cork, the
Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Seven sales representatives joined the Union in 1988. No
other union has negotiating rights for this grade. The Union
has been seeking negotiating rights and a procedural agreement
on behalf of its members since 1988, and at this stage the
members patience has run out. The Union requests the Court to
recommend that the Company recognise the Union for the purpose
of representing its members and also recommends that the
Company negotiate a procedural agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company recognises the right of any employee to join
or not to join a union but it is not obliged to give that
union negotiating rights. Since its establishment, the
Company has always dealt with employee relations in accordance
with progressive national and international practices in
personnel management. The Company's record in Company/Union
negotiations has been amicable and co-operative.
2. To preserve its long standing good industrial relations
record, and taking into account its small employee numbers,
the better industrial relations flowing from fewer unions, and
the wish to avoid inter-union problems, the Company has
decided that it is not prepared to afford negotiating rights
to a 5th union, in an organisation with less than 90
employees. It is neither reasonable nor necessary.
3. The Company cannot see why, in the context of maintaining
its overall good industrial relations climate, the interests
of the sales representatives could not be served by the
professional sector of the existing major union, S.I.P.T.U.
Indeed, there has always been an understanding between the
Company and S.I.P.T.U. that in the event of any staff, other
than operative or craft workers, seeking to join a union,
S.I.P.T.U. would have the right to organise them. S.I.P.T.U.
has both the structure and ability to cater for them as an
additional bargaining unit under the jurisdiction of that
union.
4. The Company does not subscribe to the concept of a
multiplicity of unions within the Company. The question of
sanctioning recognition for the Union in respect of a minority
of employees is contrary to the Company's philosophy and
culture.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that there is no agreement in existence
in the Company which gives any union sole negotiating rights.
Having considered the submissions, the Court recommends that the
Company recognise M.S.F.'s right to negotiate on behalf of those
members of staff which it has in membership.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
3rd September, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.