Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91441 Case Number: LCR13447 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: C.M.S. SIGNMAX - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Union Recognition.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is quite certain that the fears expressed by the Company on
the question of Union organisation are groundless and it would
recommend that it should agree to recognise the Union and its
right to negotiate on behalf of its members in the employment,
without further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91441 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13447
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: C.M.S. SIGNMAX
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union wrote to the Company on the 22nd February, and 21st
March, 1991 stating that it had organised approximately 40 workers
into Union membership. It requested a meeting to discuss a
Union/Company agreement and to review conditions of employment of
the workers concerned. The Company responded on the 23rd March
seeking a list of employees who had joined the Union. The Union
refused the request and subsequently referred the issue to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. The
Company declined an invitation to attend a conciliation conference
and the Union then referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 agreeing to be
bound by the Court's recommendation. The Labour Court
investigated the dispute on the 4th October, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have a fundamental right to join a
Union which will negotiate on their behalf. The Company is in
breach of well established industrial relations procedures in
refusing to meet with the Union. Recognition of the right of
Unions to negotiate on behalf of their members is standard
practice throughout the country.
2. The Labour Court has recommended in support of claims for
Union recognition in many similar cases . The Union cannot
understand the Company's decision to ignore numerous requests
for discussions on behalf of the forty workers. They are not
happy with the present situation, (membership of the staff
association), because they sought and were afforded membership
of the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The present mechanism for dealing with negotiations on
wages and conditions of employment is adequate. This
mechanism is the staff association which was founded in 1988.
It involves a staff charter and workers who wish to discuss
wages and conditions of employment with Management may do so
through the charter. Wages and conditions of employment in
the Company are well in line with those of comparable
employments. The Company has implemented Phase 1 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress and will make every
effort to implement Phases 2 and 3 when they become due. The
Company has, for many years, had a regular pattern of meeting
with all employees to discuss various aspects of a production
or personal nature. Management is at all times available for
discussions with employees.
2. The Company has a preference for negotiating directly with
workers rather than negotiating through a third party. The
logic behind this preference is that employees have a much
greater appreciation of conditions and constraints on
Management. The Company has a staff association and it does
not want a situation to arise where the workforce is being
represented by two bodies, namely a staff association and a
trade union. The Company undertook a survey of the workforce
in September, 1991 (details supplied to the Court). The
survey clearly indicated that the vast majority of the staff
of the Company are satisfied with their conditions and have no
desire to be represented by a trade union.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is quite certain that the fears expressed by the Company on
the question of Union organisation are groundless and it would
recommend that it should agree to recognise the Union and its
right to negotiate on behalf of its members in the employment,
without further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
13th January, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.