Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94159 Case Number: LCR14458 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: STET ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Union recognition.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court recommends that the
Company recognise the Union for negotiating purposes on behalf of
their members in the employment.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94159 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14458
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: STET ENGINEERING LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1977 and is involved in the
manufacture of precision parts. The Company employs 34
workers. The majority are toolmakers.
2. A number of the workers approached the Union and asked it
to represent them in negotiations on pay and conditions within
the Company. Nineteen workers are members of the Union, the
majority of whom joined in January, 1994.
3. The Union claims that it wrote to the Company on two
occasions, seeking a meeting to discuss pay and conditions for
its members. The Company did not respond. The Union referred
the dispute to the Labour Court on 3rd March, 1994 under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour
Court hearing took place on 18th May, 1994, in Sligo.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is not seeking to impose Union recognition on
the Company. It was the wish of the workers concerned that
they be formally represented in relation to pay and
conditions.
2. The Company deals with workers on an individual basis if
there are problems. This made it difficult for workers to
negotiate. There are nineteen of the twenty-six workers who
wish to be formally represented.
2. LCR14458
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is involved in a highly competitive market.
Despite this, it has always endeavoured to maintain its staff
on full time work. There have always been good relations
between management and the workers. There have been no
dismissals or incidents of industrial actions by workers in
the history of the Company. There were above average pay
increases to all staff in the years 1992-94.
2. The Company has always dealt directly with the workers
and the majority of workers wish to continue with this
arrangement. If the Union was to represent some workers it
would create a division in the workforce which would have a
detrimental effect on the Company's performance. There has
been no indication that workers are unhappy with pay or
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court recommends that the
Company recognise the Union for negotiating purposes on behalf of
their members in the employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
1st June, 1994 ___________________
C O'N/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Ciaran O'Neill