Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92775 Case Number: LCR13966 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: THE HAMLET - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning union recognition.
Recommendation:
7. The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union and
negotiate with it in respect of its members in the employment.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92775 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13966
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: THE HAMLET
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is situated in Enfield, County Meath,
operates a supermarket, roadhouse and undertaking business.
3. The Union wrote to the Company seeking a meeting to discuss a
number of issues on behalf of an employee. The Company replied
stating that it had arranged for a meeting with the worker
concerning a disciplinary matter and that the Union representative
could attend as an observer. The meeting was held on 4th August,
1992.
4. The Union referred the issue of Union recognition to the
Labour Relations Commission. The Company declined an invitation
to attend a conciliation conference. The Union then referred the
dispute to the Labour Court on 9th December, 1992 for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on 15th
February, 1992. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker concerned has been dismissed from her
employment. The Company's failure to recognise the Union did
not afford the worker adequate representation.
2. The Union adhered to establish procedures but in spite of
this no negotiating forum was established.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has on several occasions indicated that it has
no difficulty in meeting with the Union. However other events
took place, namely the dismissal of the worker, before a
meeting could be held.
2. The Company believes that recognition is not an issue as
none of its remaining employees have expressed a wish to be
represented by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union and
negotiate with it in respect of its members in the employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
22nd February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.