Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94294 Case Number: LCR14512 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: COOPERS LIMITED - and - THE SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND |
Dispute concerning Union recognition.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the Company has for some considerable period
recognised and negotiated with its unionised employees through
their Union and had no objection to the application of such
procedures in this instance. However, complications had arisen
between the parties and the Union in this case, and the Union on
behalf of its members had directly sought the assistance of the
Court in the resolution of the difficulty.
The Court is not satisfied, in the first instance that it was
appropriate that this case was referred to it under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. It emerged from the
submissions and the oral evidence that matters of fact were in
dispute between the parties, some or all of which would have been
clarified had the normal procedures of referral involving the
services of an industrial relations officer been availed of.
In the circumstances the Court recommends the parties seek to
normalise the situation through discussions with the assistance,
of an officer of the Labour Relations Commission.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94294 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14512
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
COOPERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
THE SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 29th November, 1993, the Company was informed that
the Union had taken into membership 10 of its sales
team. The Union sought to meet the Company to discuss a
number of issues. A meeting between the parties took
place on 3rd December, 1993, at which a number of items
were discussed.
2. A local meeting between the Company and its sales staff
took place during Christmas week, 1993. Following this
meeting a local committee was established consisting of
four workers. The local committee was to deal with any
disputes prior to the involvement of the Union. A
dispute exists between the parties as to whether the
local committee was established to deal with minor
disputes or all disputes. A number of claims were dealt
with on the establishment of the local committee.
3. The Union returned to the Company in January, 1994, to
negotiate further on the list of claims it had
presented. It was informed that the Company had reached
agreement with its members on all matters in dispute.
The Union wrote to its members and following a meeting
with them on 1st March, 1994, it was mandated to resume
negotiations.
4. The parties did not meet, as the Company sought to
ascertain whether the workers wished to continue with
the local committee system. The Union referred its
claims to the Labour Relations Commission but the
Company refused to attend, claiming that it was unaware
whether the workers wished to continue with or reject
the agreement of December, 1993.
5. On 18th May, 1994, the Union referred a claim for union
recognition to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court
investigated the dispute on 2nd June, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company, rather than facilitating negotiations has
been doing everything in its power to exclude the Union.
It proposed a local committee to deal with all
negotiations while at the same time threatening the shop
steward with dismissal. A personal campaign has also
been conducted against the Union's members (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The Company has treated its sales staff badly by
refusing to negotiate an improvement in their terms and
conditions. It has deprived them of their entitlements
under the Holidays Act, not applied pay increases
uniformly, threatened to restrict compassionate leave
and, among other issues, has refused to provide
information on pension scheme amendments.
3. The workers are faced with non-recognition of the Union.
The Company has pressurised the workers and some are in
fear of losing their jobs if the Company is obliged to
negotiate better terms which the Union believes to be
essential. The Union requires the right to represent
and negotiate on behalf of its members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been unionised in its warehouse and
office for many years. It recognises the Union for the
purposes of negotiation for the sales representatives.
2. In December, 1993, the Company and the sales
representatives agreed that in the event of a dispute it
would firstly be negotiated at local level. If, at that
stage, there was to be no agreement, then the issue
could be referred to the Union for negotiation with the
Company. The sales representatives have informed the
Company in writing that they wish to conduct their
negotiations in line with this agreement. Copies of the
individual letters by the sales representatives were
presented to the Court.
3. The Company has wide experience of conducting industrial
relations. The local agreement conforms with normal
industrial relations practice. In this case the wishes
of the workers are paramount and until the workers state
that they want a different arrangement, they should not
be forced to change.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company has for some considerable period
recognised and negotiated with its unionised employees through
their Union and had no objection to the application of such
procedures in this instance. However, complications had arisen
between the parties and the Union in this case, and the Union on
behalf of its members had directly sought the assistance of the
Court in the resolution of the difficulty.
The Court is not satisfied, in the first instance that it was
appropriate that this case was referred to it under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. It emerged from the
submissions and the oral evidence that matters of fact were in
dispute between the parties, some or all of which would have been
clarified had the normal procedures of referral involving the
services of an industrial relations officer been availed of.
In the circumstances the Court recommends the parties seek to
normalise the situation through discussions with the assistance,
of an officer of the Labour Relations Commission.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd June, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.