Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94114 Case Number: LCR14345 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: B & I LINE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Union Recognition.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions in this complex dispute the
Court notes:-
(a) The question of whether the employees involved in
the dispute properly transferred from the Seamens
Union of Ireland to Services Industrial Professional
Technical Union, is not a matter to be determined by
the Court. This is a matter to be decided upon by
Irish Congress of Trade Unions within its own rules.
(b) The Court is satisfied that at present date the
employees involved are members of S.I.P.T.U.
(c) S.U.I. have an agreement with the Company which
gives them sole negotiating rights for the employees
involved in the dispute.
Taking into account the above and accepting the determination of
the employees who constitute a substantial number of the total
workforce covered by the agreement and who do not wish to remain
in membership of S.U.I., the Court considers it would be
unrealistic not to recognise the de-facto position.
The Court, accordingly, recommends the Company recognise
S.I.P.T.U.'s right to represent the employees which they have in
membership.
The Court recognises that the above recommendation may have
Industrial Relations implications . However, the Court sees any
such matter being capable of resolution within the normal
Industrial Relations procedures.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94114 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14345
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
B & I LINE
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned with the dispute are employed by the
Company as "Marine Ratings". In early 1993, a number of workers
defected from the Seamens' Union of Ireland (S.U.I.) and applied
for membership of S.I.P.T.U.. Membership was not granted as
S.I.P.T.U. considered that the requirements of the constitution of
the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (I.C.T.U.) vis a vis, the
transfer of members, were not met.
The Disputes' Committee of I.C.T.U. became involved but did not
resolve the membership question. The matter was referred to an
Appeals Board. The Board met and made recommendations for
redress, and concluded that the S.U.I. should implement the
recommendations.
In early 1994, S.I.P.T.U. received further applications for
membership, from the workers concerned. On 4th January, 1994
S.I.P.T.U. wrote to I.C.T.U. stating that it was taking the
applicants into membership strictly in accordance with Rule 48 of
the constitution of I.C.T.U..
S.I.P.T.U. sought recognition from the Company on behalf of the
workers. The Company refused recognition. A secret ballot of the
workers was held, following which, notice of industrial action, up
to and including full stoppage of work (to expire on Wednesday
16th February, 1994) was served.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 15th February, 1994, but no
agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 22nd February, 1994. A recommendation issued by letter
on 23rd February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The applications for Union membership are pursuant to
Rule 48 of the Constitution of I.C.T.U.. The members
withdrew from the S.U.I. following that Union's failure to
implement the recommendations of the I.C.T.U. Appeals
Committee.
2. The workers concerned went through a long and difficult
process to ensure that there could be no questions raised
regarding their right to join S.I.P.T.U.
3. The Court is requested to recommend that, in the
interests of good staff relations, the Union be granted
recognition to enable it to represent the workers concerned
in accordance with normal procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A sole negotiating rights agreement exists between the
Company and the S.U.I., covering all Ratings. This is a long
standing agreement freely entered into by both parties, from
the inception of the Union. The Company cannot unilaterally
change this agreement. To do so would be a breach of the
agreement and would almost definitely result in an industrial
dispute with the S.U.I..
2. The Company currently has confirmation that 75 Ratings
(14 of whom are temporary) have joined S.I.P.T.U.. This
represents approximately 15% of the total number involved and
would suggest that the vast majority still want to be
represented by the S.U.I..
3. The Company understands that there is an ongoing dispute
between the S.U.I. and I.C.T.U., which may have legal
implications. The outcome of this dispute could have a
bearing on the decision of Congress to allow S.I.P.T.U. take
Ratings into membership.
4. In view of the many and varied circumstances of this
case the Company asks the Court to recommend that the claim
for Union recognition be withdrawn and that the related
threatened industrial action be set aside. Agreement should
be achieved between the two Unions (using Congress if
necessary) before the Company are formally approached to
change its existing recognition agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions in this complex dispute the
Court notes:-
(a) The question of whether the employees involved in
the dispute properly transferred from the Seamens
Union of Ireland to Services Industrial Professional
Technical Union, is not a matter to be determined by
the Court. This is a matter to be decided upon by
Irish Congress of Trade Unions within its own rules.
(b) The Court is satisfied that at present date the
employees involved are members of S.I.P.T.U.
(c) S.U.I. have an agreement with the Company which
gives them sole negotiating rights for the employees
involved in the dispute.
Taking into account the above and accepting the determination of
the employees who constitute a substantial number of the total
workforce covered by the agreement and who do not wish to remain
in membership of S.U.I., the Court considers it would be
unrealistic not to recognise the de-facto position.
The Court, accordingly, recommends the Company recognise
S.I.P.T.U.'s right to represent the employees which they have in
membership.
The Court recognises that the above recommendation may have
Industrial Relations implications . However, the Court sees any
such matter being capable of resolution within the normal
Industrial Relations procedures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th February, 1994
F.B./M.M. Evelyn Owens
________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.