Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94216 Case Number: LCR14460 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KRUPS SALES LIMITED - and - SALES, MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND |
Union Recognition.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions and oral evidence
presented by the Union and the letter submitted by the Company
outlining its position. It is the Court's understanding that
there is no inter-union representational issue involved in this
case. Accordingly, having regard to the different and distinct
nature of the work of the claimants, the Court recommends that the
Company grants the Union representational rights on their behalf,
subject only to the rules of the I.C.T.U. in respect of such
rights.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
(S.M.A.U.I.
Worker: Ms Ni Mhurchu
Body:
CD94216 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14460
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
KRUPS SALES LIMITED
AND
SALES, MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND (S.M.A.U.I.)
SUBJECT:
1. Union Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns two sales representatives who sought to
have their interests represented by the S.M.A.U.I. The Union
wrote to the Company in November, 1993 and in January, 1994
concerning the representation of the workers. The Company
did not reply to the Union's letters and following
correspondence with the Labour Relations Commission, the
Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 7th of
April, 1994, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company did not
attend a Court hearing, but set out its case by letter to the
Court dated the 17th May, 1994. The Company's position is
that it already recognises two Unions, one representing
salaried employees (including the two workers in question)
and a second representing craft workers. The Company sees no
advantage in recognising a third Union. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 20th of May, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The right of workers to union representation is widely
recognised by the Courts, by the Employment Appeals
Tribunal and by the Labour Court. There is no valid
reason for the Company not granting the S.M.A.U.I. the
right to negotiate. S.M.A.U.I. is a specialist union
catering for sales representatives. The Company's
stated policy of recognising just two unions is
unacceptable. S.M.A.U.I. is a separate trade union and
a member of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions
(I.C.T.U.). It has had no difficulty in the past in
having the right to represent its members fully
recognised.
2. The two workers have mandated S.M.A.U.I. to represent
them. They have exercised their constitutional right by
joining the Union. The Company is in breach of
established industrial relations procedures in refusing
to meeting the union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It has been the long-standing policy of the Group in
Ireland to recognise just two unions as representing its
employees, i.e. the T.E.E.U. for craft workers and the
white-collar branch of S.I.P.T.U. for all other
employees.
2. There is no reason why the two employees in question
should not follow normal policy in the area by being
represented by the white-collar branch of S.I.P.T.U., if
they wish to be represented by a union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions and oral evidence
presented by the Union and the letter submitted by the Company
outlining its position. It is the Court's understanding that
there is no inter-union representational issue involved in this
case. Accordingly, having regard to the different and distinct
nature of the work of the claimants, the Court recommends that the
Company grants the Union representational rights on their behalf,
subject only to the rules of the I.C.T.U. in respect of such
rights.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th May, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
M.K./M.M. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.