Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9295 Case Number: LCR13625 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WARD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning Union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It does not consider the concerns expressed by the Company
relating to the partial organisation by the Union of the staff
concerned are well founded and therefore recommends that the
Company recognises the Union and agrees to negotiate with it on
behalf of its members in the employment.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9295 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13625
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WARD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture, installation and
servicing of rotary die-cutters and other finishing equipment and
employs approximately 60 workers in Athlone. In August, 1991 a
number of workers in the administrative grade requested Union
representation and the Union wrote to Management in August and
September, 1991 seeking a meeting to discuss Union recognition and
negotiating nights on behalf of the workers concerned. A meeting
was held on the 1st October, 1991. Management wrote to the Union
on the 21st November, 1991 and stated that the Company had decided
not to recognise the Union. The Union referred the issue to the
Labour Relations Commission but the Company declined an invitation
to attend a conciliation conference. On the 10th February, 1992
the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute
in Athlone on the 1st April, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Constitution guarantees the right of workers to join a
Union. There is no point in this guarantee if, at the same
time, an employer is denying workers the right to benefit from
Union membership. The Company acknowledges the necessity and
benefits of Union membership in that it is a member of the
Federation of Irish Employers and it uses all the available
expertise on labour law and industrial relations. The workers
concerned need the same facilities which are provided by the
Union.
2. The workers concerned have had an informal representation
and have met Management on various issues. This in itself is
an acknowledgment by the Company that the workers have a right
to be heard and to be concerned about various issues. The
Union rejects Management's contention that there may be a
conflict of interest between some workers' roles as part of
Management and their Union membership. They are responsible
employees and have a clear understanding of their obligations
to the Company in relation to confidential information.
3. The Union accepts that the Company has created valuable
employment in the area. However it has received generous
tax-incentives and grants at considerable cost to the State
which ultimately means cost to tax-payers, the vast majority
of whom are Union members. The Company should respect the
norm obtaining in the State in relation to trade union
membership and recognise the Union as representing the workers
concerned. Given that a closed shop agreement already exists
between Company and Unions for all hourly-paid and craft
grades there is no reason why the Company cannot recognise the
right of staff employees to be represented by the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not dispute the constitutional right of
workers to join a Union. It is also the Company's right not
to recognise the Union. Management explained to the workers
concerned in October, 1991 why, in respect of staff grades, it
would not recognise the Union. The Company understands that
approximately half of the workers concerned favour Union
recognition while the rest are against Union representation.
Management feels that Union recognition could cause a split
amongst the workers.
2. The staff employees in Ward International are in the
clerical, administrative, professional and supervisory grades.
The nature of their work includes dealing with confidential
information on personnel, wages, pricing, technical and
financial data etc. Union membership could cause a serious
conflict of interest in relation to Company/Union loyalties.
In addition, the small number of administrative staff
concerned are required to give maximum co-operation and
flexibility in job functions and assignments. Management
cannot negotiate in these areas.
3. The Company firmly believes that the most effective method
of management is to deal directly with the workers concerned
on a one-to-one basis. There is no need for the involvement
of a third party which would harm the relationship between the
Company and its administrative staff. The Company has always
dealt with administrative staff on a one-to-one basis. It has
been beneficial to both the worker and employer and has always
been Company policy with regard to staff employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It does not consider the concerns expressed by the Company
relating to the partial organisation by the Union of the staff
concerned are well founded and therefore recommends that the
Company recognises the Union and agrees to negotiate with it on
behalf of its members in the employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
14th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.