Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95352 Case Number: LCR14847 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: W.M. MCKINNEY & SONS LIMITED (T/A OATFIELDS SWEETS) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Union recognition
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
recommends that the Company recognise the Union and accept the
Union's right to represent its members in the employment of the
Company.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95352 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14847
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: W.M. MCKINNEY & SONS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union recognition
BACKGROUND:
2. W.M. MCKinney & Sons Ltd. ("Oatfield") is a Letterkenny
County Donegal based manufacturer. It produces and packages
products under the Oatfield and Emerald trade names for the
Irish and overseas markets. It employs approximately 110
workers.
In 1992, a dispute arose in the Company following which a
Works Committee was set up. The workers sought the advice of
the Union at that time but did not apply for membership.
Recently to coincide with the expiry date of the old Works
Committee, the Company reviewed the constitution of the
Committee. Voting for the new committee took place between
2nd June and 18th June, 1995 and a Committee was duly
elected.
In April/May, 1995, the Union wrote to the Company informing
it that a substantial number of its employees had joined the
Union and sought a meeting to discuss the pay and conditions
of employment of the workers concerned. The Company did not
respond to the Union's letters or to an invitation by the
Labour Relations Commission to attend a conciliation
conference.
The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court on 7th
June, 1995, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place in Sligo
on 18th July, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Management made no effort to meet the Union to discuss
representation and negotiating rights on behalf of the
workers concerned. This Union has a policy of dealing
honourably with companies where it has membership.
2. Many workers have sought the assistance of the Union in
relation to working conditions in the plant. It would be in
the best interests of both the Company and the Union to have
an agreement in place. In many similar cases the Labour
Court has recommended in favour of Union recognition.
3. The workers concerned have no confidence in the Works
Committee. The Committee has failed since 1992 to solve
problems because it had no power to negotiate on issues such
as pay, conditions of employment and health and safety. It
is the workers view that the new Committee will also fail.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Historically the Company has negotiated with its in-house
Works Committee in relation to pay and conditions of
employment. This Committee, which was democratically elected
by employees, therefore, has sole negotiating rights and this
provision has been copperfastened in the agreed constitution
of the revised Works Committee which has recently taken
office (details supplied).
2. Each operational area has an elected representative,
totalling 9 employees and 3 management representatives. The
scope of issues which may be raised by the Committee reflects
the full range of issues normally within the remit of
company/staff relations. The first meeting of the new Works
Committee took place on 22nd June, 1995, and given the level
of support for the elections to the committee, i.e. over 60%,
the Company is democratically and morally obligated to
respect the wishes of the majority of staff who are clearly
supportive of the revised role of the Works Committee.
3. The Company does not question the right of any individual to
exercise his or her right to take up membership of a union.
However, this cannot be construed as acceptance of
recognition of the union by the company. The Company asserts
its right not to negotiate or recognise the trade union given
the above circumstances.
4. Arising from the competitive pressures being faced by the
business, the Company must be able to operate in an
environment of maximum flexibility and rapid response to
market changes. This flexibility represents the corner-stone
of its strategy in dealing with current commercial pressures
and the concession of recognition to SIPTU would distort the
employee relations culture within the plant in a manner
incompatible with the preservation of established in-plant
relations.
5. The Company provide terms and conditions of employment which
compare favourably with a wide range of employments in the
region but which take account of the competitive market in
which the Company operates.
6. In the light of the Company's exemplary experience in dealing
with its employees, the majority support expressed by the
staff for the new Works Committee and the new management
structure now in place - the Company confidently seeks the
ruling of the Court that the Works Committee be recognised
and confirmed as the sole body for consultation - negotiation
purposes and that the unions claim for recognition be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
recommends that the Company recognise the Union and accept the
Union's right to represent its members in the employment of the
Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st August, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./A.K. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.