Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93263 Case Number: LCR14084 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FIRST NATIONAL BAKERY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute arising from a claim for the introduction of Group negotiations.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and, in the light of the information provided, is of the opinion
that at this stage of the Group's development, Company-wide
negotiations, even over the limited range of issues suggested by
the Union, would not be appropriate. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93263 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14084
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: FIRST NATIONAL BAKERY
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute arising from a claim for the introduction of Group
negotiations.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1989, by the amalgamation of
eight existing independent bakeries. It has bakeries in Wexford,
Tipperary and Ballinrobe, and six distribution depots
country-wide. The Union wishes to negotiate on behalf of all
sections of the Company, on a group basis. The Company's position
is that all the constituent parts of the Company are separate
entities and should negotiate separately. The claim is on behalf
of approximately 150 of the total workforce of 480.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 8th of December, 1992 at
which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 14th of April, 1993 in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 4th of May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The Company is already dealing with certain issues on a
company-wide basis, such as the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress and a Pension Scheme.
2. The Company has appointed a Group Personnel Manager.
3. The Union is seeking that only issues common to all
components of the Company should be negotiated company-wide.
In other cases, company-wide negotiations would only take
place on the basis of mutual agreement.
4. In the case of Labour Court Recommendation 13617 (Kilsaran
Concrete), the Union was seeking the right to put in place a
comprehensive agreement covering all aspects of employment
with the Company. In the present dispute, company-wide
negotiations are being sought only on matters of common
concern to each section of the Group.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union is seeking "standardisation" of rates of pay and
conditions to the highest and most favourable company-wide.
This would imperil the future of the Company, given the
difficulty in current trading conditions.
2. Most of the existing terms and conditions in the separate
companies were negotiated separately in each location and were
in place when each Company joined the Group.
3. The Group is the only major unionised bakery in the
country, and provides conditions and pay superior to those
provided by its main competitors.
4. In April, 1992 in a similar case, the Court recommended
against the Union's claim for Group negotiation (L.C.R 13617).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and, in the light of the information provided, is of the opinion
that at this stage of the Group's development, Company-wide
negotiations, even over the limited range of issues suggested by
the Union, would not be appropriate. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
17th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.