Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92115 Case Number: LCR13617 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KILSARAN CONCRETE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVES' UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of 111 workers for Union Group recognition.
Recommendation:
The court has considered the submissions made by the parties and
has come to the conclusion that having regard to widely varying
circumstances under which the current wages and conditions were
negotiated in the different centres throughout the Company, that
a centralised system such as proposed by the Unions is not
appropriate.
The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92115 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13617
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KILSARAN CONCRETE LIMITED
(Represented by the Construction Industry Federation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVES' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of 111 workers for Union
Group recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is based in County Louth, has expanded
through acquisition in recent years and now has plants/sites in
the north east, midland and Dublin areas. S.I.P.T.U. represent
workers at 7 sites, the A.T.G.W.U. represent workers at 2 sites
and the A.G.E.M.O.U. represent workers at 1 site. Different
rates of pay and conditions apply to the workers at the
different sites. The Unions wish to negotiate with the Company
on a group basis rather than on a plant by plant basis as
happens at present. This approach has been rejected by the
Company who see no reason to depart from the current procedure.
As agreement could not be reached locally, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Relations
Commission on 9th September, 1991. No agreement was reached at
a conciliation conference held on 11th December, 1991, and the
Commission, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990 referred the matter, on 12th February, 1992,
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the matter on 12th March, 1992.
UNION GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Construction Industry Federation, representing the
Company, has rejected the Unions' 'group recognition'
claim. This is a surprising response from one of the
'social partners'. The Unions are proposing a central
bargaining system which will be more efficient and less
costly. The Company is defending the indefensible
draconian approach of keeping workers' interests separate
and ultimately devisive.
2. The Company apparently has no difficulty with a policy
of amalgamation and acquisition to further its interests in
the industry. However, the Company wishes to deny the
workers the opportunity to amalgamate or pool their
resources to further the workers' interests. Government,
employers and unions recognise the advantage of
establishing groups to deal with various social and
industrial problems and it is unacceptable that the Company
is unwilling to follow these developments.
3. Instead of being able to deal with issues of concern
to all workers, the current system requires a multiplicity
of claims from a number of different unions. This
duplication is extremely costly and wasteful and can lead
to a leap-frogging situation. The Unions, therefore,
request the Court to uphold its position in order to allow
the Union Group to establish the right to put in place a
comprehensive agreement covering all aspects of employment
pertaining to the Unions' members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has 12 sites employing 111 workers who are
represented by various unions. To-date there have been
very reasonable relations at local level with the Unions'
representatives. The Company because of the localised
nature of the business and market forces, sees no reason to
change the current system.
2. If group negotiations are imposed on the Company, it
will have the effect of raising costs throughout the
Company at a time when volume is down 15% in Dublin and
where price reductions of up to 25% have had to be
implemented. The Company accepts that there are
differences in employment conditions on different sites -
these are historical. However, there is no justification
for unifying conditions across the Company as market
conditions are quite different from one location to
another. Group recognition would immediately lead to
claims for uniformity of pay and conditions which would
have very serious implications for the Company.
3. Each site must stand alone and compete in the local
market place and as a result it is necessary to continue
with the local agreements which have always been amicably
agreed between the Company and Unions. This approach must
be maintained for the sake of the Company, job security and
for the speedy resolution of disputes without the
involvement of cumbersome centralised negotiations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The court has considered the submissions made by the parties and
has come to the conclusion that having regard to widely varying
circumstances under which the current wages and conditions were
negotiated in the different centres throughout the Company, that
a centralised system such as proposed by the Unions is not
appropriate.
The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
7th April, 1992
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Brian O'Neill, Court Secretary.