Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94105 Case Number: LCR14404 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ROYAL LIVER ASSURANCE LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (M.S.F. |
Dispute concerning union recognition.
Recommendation:
Both the Union and the Company agree that discussions which are
taking place regarding the procedures and operation of the D.M.A.
may result in changes which would permit direct representation by
an Irish Official of M.S.F. at Liverpool negotiations relating to
specifically Irish issues. The parties also confirm that if such
a conclusion is reached there is likelihood that similar
arrangements could be put in place in respect of the Head Office
Branch to which Divisional Inspectors concerned in today's claim
would be affiliated if they were to join M.S.F. under existing
arrangements.
In the circumstances the Court considers that the Union should
accept existing M.S.F. membership arrangements until these
discussions are completed.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94105 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14404
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ROYAL LIVER ASSURANCE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (M.S.F.)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Royal Liver Assurance Limited has a staff of 670 in
Ireland. Services Industrial Professional Technical
Union (S.I.P.T.U.) represent all non-managerial staff,
which comprises clerical, agency staff, assistant
managers and district inspectors, in Ireland. The
managerial staff, of which 26 are in Ireland, and
consolidation assistants are represented by M.S.F. based
in Liverpool.
2. In September, 1992, four Divisional Inspectors joined
M.S.F. and in December, 1992 the Company was informed of
this. The Company responded on 18th January, 1993
stating that they had a sole-recognition agreement with
S.I.P.T.U.. The Union pointed out that since this grade
was responsible for the supervision and monitoring of
other grades, who were members of S.I.P.T.U., it would
be inappropriate to be represented by the same union.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission but the Company refused to attend a
conciliation conference. The Union referred the issue
to the Labour Court under Section 20 of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 on 14th February, 1994. The Court
investigated the dispute on 7th April, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Divisional Inspectors are responsible for the
supervision and monitoring of other grades which are
represented by S.I.P.T.U. and it would be inappropriate
that they be represented by the same union.
2. The dispute is not about whether S.I.P.T.U. or M.S.F.
should represent this grade. The Company allow staff to
be represented by M.S.F. provided that representation
takes place in the U.K., with a U.K. full-time official.
The Union wish to have the facility of an Irish
full-time official representing the four workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has to carry out two separate sets of
negotiations with S.I.P.T.U., and considers that it is
unreasonable to expect that a further negotiating
facility should be created for a group of staff
comprising four Divisional Inspectors. The facility
already exists for this group of staff to be represented
by S.I.P.T.U., or they could make a request to be
represented by M.S.F. Liverpool, which already
represents their colleagues based in the U.K.
2. The workers should give the existing structures through
the District Managers Association (D.M.A.) a chance.
Discussions are taking place presently regarding the
procedures and operation of the D.M.A. and these may
resolve current problems.
RECOMMENDATION:
Both the Union and the Company agree that discussions which are
taking place regarding the procedures and operation of the D.M.A.
may result in changes which would permit direct representation by
an Irish Official of M.S.F. at Liverpool negotiations relating to
specifically Irish issues. The parties also confirm that if such
a conclusion is reached there is likelihood that similar
arrangements could be put in place in respect of the Head Office
Branch to which Divisional Inspectors concerned in today's claim
would be affiliated if they were to join M.S.F. under existing
arrangements.
In the circumstances the Court considers that the Union should
accept existing M.S.F. membership arrangements until these
discussions are completed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th April, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C./M.M. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.