Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92707 Case Number: LCR13986 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim by the Union that the Company is in breach of the Company/Union agreement.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing, the Court in the first instance does not consider that
the Union's suggestion that four additional Shift-managers be
recruited to fill the positions in question is tenable. It is
satisfied that the Company is in breach of its obligation under
the Union Membership clause of the current agreement. They should
have insisted that the workers concerned, whose posts are
specifically listed to be filled by persons who are required to
become and remain members of the Union, should have remained in
the Union until a change had been negotiated which took account of
any changes which may have taken place in the scope of their
responsibilities. The Court therefore recommends that these
negotiations take place immediately.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92707 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13986
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim by the Union that the Company is in
breach of the Company/Union agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company began operations at Scarriff, Co. Clare in 1984,
having taken over the Chipboard Factory which had been in
operation in Scarriff from 1959 to 1983. The Company currently
employs 170 workers, producing particle-board, primarily for the
Irish and U.K. markets.
The dispute concerns the 'resignation' of four Shift-Managers
from the Union, as the Company was of the view that
Line-Management would be more effective if it were more closely
allied to Management. Following the re-drawing of the duties of
four Shift-Managers, the four Managers notified the Union of their
intention to resign as Union members. The Union did not accept
them resignations believing that the Company had "actively enticed
members to leave the Union". The Union contends that the Company
is in breach of the Company/Union Comprehensive Work Agreement
which covers all non-craft workers.
The Union also contends that four other Union members should be
promoted to the Shift-Manager positions.
The Company's response is that it "could not constrain individuals
to remain in the Union" and that it was "not in a position to
create additional Shift-Manager positions".
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 2nd of October, 1990 at
which the threat of industrial action was averted. A settlement
was reached which, inter alia, reconstituted the four as Union
members, with the understanding that they intended to resign from
membership through the appropriate Union procedures.
Letters of resignation were issued to the Union which were not
accepted. At present, while the four workers are no longer
paid-up members of the Union, the issue of Union membership has
not been finalised.
Both parties agreed at conciliation in May, 1992, that the dispute
should be investigated by the Labour Court. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court, on the 18th November, 1992, in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990.
The Court investigated the dispute, in Limerick, on the 10th
February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. According to the Comprehensive Agreement between the Union
and the Company, the Company recognises the M.P.G.W.U. as the
negotiating-body for all non-craft employees. It is a
condition of employment that all such employees should become
and remain members of the Union.
2. The Union's case in no way infringes on the constitutional
rights of the workers. By making a conscious decision to
leave the Union, the four Shift-Managers have automatically
disassociated themselves from the Comprehensive Work
Agreement. As the Agreement covers this category of worker,
four Union members should be promoted to the Shift-Manager
positions.
3. The Company's actions, if allowed to be continued, will
result in the undermining of the Work Agreement and the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The right of Disassociation has clearly been recognised in
Irish Constitutional Law. The Company cannot be expected to
force individuals to remain in the Union against their will.
2. The Company cannot be accused of breaching an agreement
because of the voluntary action of the four workers. The
Union's expectation that the Company replace the
Shift-Managers with Union members is unrealistic and cannot be
justified from a cost or organisational perspective.
3. The Company believes that certain supervisory posts will
become specifically Management positions as the Company
evolves.
4. The Company has no desire to undermine the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing, the Court in the first instance does not consider that
the Union's suggestion that four additional Shift-managers be
recruited to fill the positions in question is tenable. It is
satisfied that the Company is in breach of its obligation under
the Union Membership clause of the current agreement. They should
have insisted that the workers concerned, whose posts are
specifically listed to be filled by persons who are required to
become and remain members of the Union, should have remained in
the Union until a change had been negotiated which took account of
any changes which may have taken place in the scope of their
responsibilities. The Court therefore recommends that these
negotiations take place immediately.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
8th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.