Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91612 Case Number: LCR13533 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BULL INFORMATION SYSTEMS LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE UNION |
Dispute concerning Union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented, the Court recommends that the Company
recognises the Union and affords it negotiating rights on behalf
of staff who are in its membership.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91612 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13533
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BULL INFORMATION SYSTEMS LIMITED
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 2,000 workers in the U.K. and Ireland.
Thirty workers are based in the Republic of Ireland, primarily in
sales and customer service. The Company markets computers and
software.
2. The Union contacted the Company on 1st October, 1991 advising
that the majority of workers in the customer services division
were members of the Union. The Union sought a meeting to
negotiate a procedural agreement. The Company responded that it
was its practice to meet staff on a personal basis and refused to
meet the Union.
3. The Union by letter dated 14th November, 1991 submitted the
case to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Labour
Court recommendation. A Labour Court investigation took place on
14th January, 1992.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are 22 workers in the customer services division
of the Company. Seventeen of these workers are Union members.
The Union has experience representing workers in computer
companies and is conscious of the particular needs of these
companies regarding flexibility and change as marketplace
circumstances evolve. The Union record in this regard is
well-known.
2. The Union is anxious to meet the Company to establish
recognition and negotiate a procedural agreement for its
members. So far, the response received from the Company has
been that it deals with staff on a personal basis.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company made a large loss of profits in 1990. A
transformation plan is in place and by the end of 1991, it was
slightly ahead of profit and revenue targets. To meet the
challenges of a rapidly changing industry, teamwork,
co-operation, willingness to change and flexibility are
essential. To do this, a climate of mutual trust and openness
is created by ensuring that managers talk to, discuss with and
listen to workers directly and not through a third party. The
Company also has a grievance policy and procedure (details
supplied). Any issues that do require resolving can be
handled through well established existing policies and
procedures.
2. On the whole, workers, with the Company compare very
favourably with competitors' in respect of salaries, benefits
and terms and conditions of employment (details supplied).
The right of workers to become members of a trade union is not
disputed. The Company believes, however, that it is not in
its best interests or in the interests of the workers formally
to recognise a Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented, the Court recommends that the Company
recognises the Union and affords it negotiating rights on behalf
of staff who are in its membership.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
21st January, 1992 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman