Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9471 Case Number: LCR14403 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: OFFRAY RIBBON LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE. (M.S.F. |
Union Recognition.
Recommendation:
Having considered the issues in this case, the Court recommends as
follows:-
- the Company accept the right of the claimants to be
represented by the M.S.F. and recognise the Union for
negotiation purposes on behalf of the claimants;
- both sides negotiate a procedural agreement within one
month of the issue of this recommendation;
- the Union refrain from processing any claims until the
procedural agreement is finalised;
- the claimants work Saturdays where required by the
Company, under protest if necessary, and process a claim
regarding the issue of Saturday working when the
Procedural Agreement is finalised.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9471 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14403
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
OFFRAY RIBBON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE. (M.S.F.)
SUBJECT:
1. Union Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of ribbons and
ribbon-based products at Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, since 1979.
It employs a staff of approximately 165, of whom 30 (clerical
workers) are represented by M.S.F. The dispute arose
following a claim for similar negotiating rights which was
made on behalf of 5 Supervisory Staff. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 2nd of September,
1993. A proposal was made that the Company would agree to
negotiate a recognition agreement in return for agreement by
the Supervisors to work Saturday over-time on the basis of
time-off in lieu. The proposal was rejected by the
Supervisors. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
the 1st of February, 1994, in accordance with Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute, in Limerick, on the 24th of March,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the right of the Union to represent the
Supervisory Staff and to negotiate a procedural
agreement with the Company. To be collectively
represented is the right of the employees and is a
fundamental principle of good industrial relations.
2. The Union has represented the clerical staff since 1985
and has had good relations with the Company during that
time. The Supervisors should be afforded the same
rights as their clerical colleagues and the production
staff who are member of S.I.P.T.U.
3. The Supervisory staff joined M.S.F. because they believe
that their ability to negotiate with the Company as
individuals has not been adequate to safeguard their
terms and conditions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Supervisors' ban on overtime is a form of industrial
action, which caused the Company to withdraw from
discussions with the Union on the procedural agreement
and recognition, until the overtime ban was lifted. At
conciliation, the Company indicated that substantive
matters such as Saturday overtime could be raised in the
normal manner after completion of the procedural
agreement.
2. While the Company has had a reasonable relationship with
the Union in the past regarding clerical/laboratory
employees, their is considerable concern at the lack of
responsibility exhibited by the Union on the issue of
the overtime ban. This has convinced the Company that a
procedural agreement is essential before formal
recognition is granted.
3. The procedural agreement required by the Company would
contain no onerous terms as it would be based on the
agreement already in place in respect of
clerical/laboratory staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the issues in this case, the Court recommends as
follows:-
- the Company accept the right of the claimants to be
represented by the M.S.F. and recognise the Union for
negotiation purposes on behalf of the claimants;
- both sides negotiate a procedural agreement within one
month of the issue of this recommendation;
- the Union refrain from processing any claims until the
procedural agreement is finalised;
- the claimants work Saturdays where required by the
Company, under protest if necessary, and process a claim
regarding the issue of Saturday working when the
Procedural Agreement is finalised.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th April, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
M.K./M.M. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.