Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94249 Case Number: LCR14476 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NYPRO LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Union recognition and terms and conditions of recognition.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that there is
a negotiating agreement between S.I.P.T.U. and the Company in
respect of all hourly paid employees.
Regarding the involvement of A.E.E.U. on behalf of its members the
Court notes the correspondence between A.E.E.U. and S.I.P.T.U.
confirming that no dispute exists between A.E.E.U. and S.I.P.T.U.
in respect of any of its members. Given the above the Court
recommends that A.E.E.U. should be accorded recognition in respect
of the craftsmen in the Company in membership of the Union.
Any dispute regarding trade union membership of any of the
members involved should be resolved through the procedures
available to the unions through their membership of the I.C.T.U..
The Court draws attention to the need to ensure continuity of
production in this Company, if the interests of the future success
of the Company and the continued security and expansion of
employment are to be assured, and recommends that the Company and
the Union put in place arrangements for dealing with issues which
will achieve these ends.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94249 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14476
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NYPRO LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union recognition and terms and conditions of recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of plastic
components. It employs 200 workers. The dispute concerns 16
maintenance craftsmen. In March 1994, the Union wrote to the
Company requesting a meeting to discuss a review of the
"Agreement on Conditions of Employment". The Company
responded by letter of 20th March, 1994 stating that they had
an agreement with the majority Union (S.I.P.T.U.) and did not
intend entering agreements with more than one Union. The
Union claimed that it had a recognition agreement with Solus
Teo and that under the European Communities (Safeguarding of
Employees' Rights on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations
1980 this agreement was still valid. The Company maintained
that employees of Solus Teo had been declared redundant and
subsequently employed by NYPRO under a new contract of
employment. Following further correspondence the Company
continued to reject the Union's claim and the Union
threatened industrial action. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences
where held on the 25th and 28th April, 1994 but no agreement
was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
the 3rd May, 1994. The Court investigated the dispute on the
19th May, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In October, 1979 the Union, on behalf of a number of
maintenance workers, signed an agreement on conditions
of employment with Solus Teo, which became NYPRO/SOLUS
and subsequently NYPRO Ltd.. Since that time the
Company has deducted union contributions from members
and remitted them to the Union. The workers' employment
has been continuous and clearly the Safeguarding of
Employees Rights on Transfer of Undertakings Regulations
1980 applies in this case.
2. The new Site Agreement of 1988 which was negotiated
following an official dispute covered the general body
of workers and excluded craftsmen. Clause 3 of the Site
Agreement states "the Company recognise F.W.U.I.
(S.I.P.T.U.) as the sole negotiating body on behalf of
all hourly paid workers excluding craftsmen. Clause 14
Stage 4 - Grievance Procedure - provides for the
"involvement of a Union Official". It already excluded
F.W.U.I. (S.I.P.T.U.) from organising craftsmen, hence
the site Agreement allows for the involvement of a union
other than F.W.U.I. (S.I.P.T.U.). Stage 7 states "In
the event of any union placing pickets in breach of
procedures it is assured that F.W.U.I. (S.I.P.T.U.)
members will adhere to procedures laid down by I.C.T.U..
This is further acceptance of unions other than
S.I.P.T.U..
3. The Agreement was effective for three years from 1st
September, 1988. In the event that this Agreement had
any effect in respect of maintenance workers it clearly
operated for a limited time with limited effect.
4. The Solus Teo Agreement of October, 1979 is extant.
Notwithstanding this, an agreement exists at national
level between the Union (and others) and I.B.E.C. in
respect of maintenance craftsmen. (Details supplied to
the Court). Hence, either the Solus Teo agreement is
extant or the terms of the maintenance craft agreement
apply.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company rejects the Union's claim that it already
has a negotiation and recognition agreement with NYPRO
Ltd. by virtue of an agreement dated 1979 made with
Solus Teo. The workers of Solus Teo were made
redundant. All relations between Solus and those
workers were severed. NYPRO Ltd. did not take over
employees service or liabilities. The Site Agreement
negotiated was accepted and signed by all workers
including four craftsmen formerly employed at Solus Teo.
The Company deducts and remits subscriptions to the
Union in respect of two craft workers on request. The
Company also deducts and remits monies to nominated
third parties e.g. charities, savings schemes, holiday
funds etc. These deductions cannot be construed as
conferring any rights or recognition to the third
parties concerned.
2. Recognition of the Union is against the best interests
of the Company. All permanent craftsmen have signed and
accepted the "Rules and Conditions of Employment"
covering all hourly paid workers. Clause 2 states "All
employees agree that only one Union can negotiate on
behalf of union members. Consequently the Company can
only negotiate with the Union representing the majority
of workers i.e. S.I.P.T.U.. To grant recognition to
A.E.E.U. would have serious implications with regard to
workers contracts of employment, similar claims from
other unions and the position of non-union employees.
The workers concerned are adequately represented through
the Works Council and the craft section of S.I.P.T.U..
3. If recognition were conceded it would establish two
untenable precedents.
(1) A worker can unilaterally opt out of his legal and
moral commitments given when he freely signed the
contract of employment.
(2) The Company is forced to unilaterally break its
contractual obligations to other workers who signed
similar contracts.
4. If recognition is granted it must only be on the basis
of claims being submitted and negotiated jointly with
S.I.P.T.U. in the context of the Site Agreement suitably
modified to cover maintenance craftsmen. It is crucial
that Clause 14 (including binding arbitration) should
remain intact and be operative from the date of
recognition.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that there is
a negotiating agreement between S.I.P.T.U. and the Company in
respect of all hourly paid employees.
Regarding the involvement of A.E.E.U. on behalf of its members the
Court notes the correspondence between A.E.E.U. and S.I.P.T.U.
confirming that no dispute exists between A.E.E.U. and S.I.P.T.U.
in respect of any of its members. Given the above the Court
recommends that A.E.E.U. should be accorded recognition in respect
of the craftsmen in the Company in membership of the Union.
Any dispute regarding trade union membership of any of the
members involved should be resolved through the procedures
available to the unions through their membership of the I.C.T.U..
The Court draws attention to the need to ensure continuity of
production in this Company, if the interests of the future success
of the Company and the continued security and expansion of
employment are to be assured, and recommends that the Company and
the Union put in place arrangements for dealing with issues which
will achieve these ends.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th July, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.