Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95595 Case Number: LCR15055 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TOTE IRELAND (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE (MSF |
Union recognition and procedure agreement.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties.
The Court recognises the right of the employees to be members of
the Union of their choice.
In the interests of ensuring that there is a stable Industrial
Relations climate in the employment, the Court considers that the
Union should have discussions with the Company and the two other
unions concerned, and with ICTU if this is considered necessary,
with a view to agreeing arrangements regarding representation of
all the workers in the enterprise.
The Court so recommends.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95595 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15055
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
TOTE IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE (MSF)
SUBJECT:
1. Union recognition and procedure agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 303 staff of which 250 are
part-time/casual staff represented by Tote Casual Staff
Association, which is affiliated to SIPTU. The remaining
employees are represented by either SIPTU or MANDATE.
On 7th September, 1995 the Union wrote to management
requesting a meeting to discuss terms and conditions of
employment of two technical staff. A meeting was held at
which management advised the Union that the majority of staff
was represented by two other trade unions and that it was
deemed inappropriate to deal with a third union for only 2
members of staff. This was later confirmed by letter dated
5th October, 1995. The Union claims the right to represent
its members who are in technical supervisory positions,
unlike the other employees of the Company.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the
17th October, 1995, in accordance with 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 on
11th December, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company recommends that the workers concerned should
be represented by a branch of SIPTU, separate to that
which represents the other workers. The Union can see
no difference between negotiating with a separate branch
of a union or a totally separate union.
2. It is not good industrial practice to coerce workers to
resign membership of one union and to join another, as
the Company has attempted to do.
3. The workers concerned are a technical supervisory grade,
who supervise the other members of staff. If all staff
members were to be represented by the one union it could
lead to possible conflicts of interest, which would be to the
disadvantage of the two workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has a long history of extensive negotiations
with both SIPTU and MANDATE who represent the majority
of workers in the Company. It would not be appropriate
to introduce a third trade union to represent only two
workers.
2. SIPTU represents all other technicians in the Company
and would therefore appear to be the most appropriate
union to represent the workers concerned.
3. It is not unusual for different branches of one union to
represent different grades of workers, if the workers so
decide.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties.
The Court recognises the right of the employees to be members of
the Union of their choice.
In the interests of ensuring that there is a stable Industrial
Relations climate in the employment, the Court considers that the
Union should have discussions with the Company and the two other
unions concerned, and with ICTU if this is considered necessary,
with a view to agreeing arrangements regarding representation of
all the workers in the enterprise.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th January, 1996 Tom McGrath
D.G./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.