FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FAMAC INTERNATIONAL LTD - AND - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Negotiating Rights And Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in February, 1992, to provide a delivery service to parcel traffic in the Republic of Ireland, working in conjunction with the business to business section of Famac Network Ltd. ( in Northern Ireland). The aim was to provide a 32-county delivery service on a next-day basis. The Company has a staff of approximately 25 at present. The dispute concerns attempts by the Union to represent about 12 Drivers, Sorters and Warehousemen. Following a number of approaches by the Union, a ballot was held by the Company, the result of which was that 6 workers wished to be represented by the Union and 6 wished for an internal Works Committee to be set up. Subsequently it was decided that the latter course would be taken with the proviso that any issues that could not be resolved by means of the internal system could, if requested by Union members, be discussed by management with the Union. On the 26th of March, 1996 the Union wrote to the Company stating that its members had not agreed not to be represented by the Union. The issue was referred to the Labour Court, by the Union, on the 8th of March, 1996, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 8th of May, 1996, the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Despite the ballot vote resulting in a tie, the Company adopted the internal system of Works Committee, with matters which remained unresolved to be discussed with the Union. The clear implication is that the Union would be involved only on very rare occasions.
2. The Company has indicated that while it would "talk" to the Union, under no circumstances would it "negotiate" with the Union.
3. The workers in question are subject to archaic terms and conditions of employment and have no opportunity to have their problems addressed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Out of a total of 28 staff balloted on the issue of representation only 6 indicated that they wanted to be represented by a union. In fairness to the majority it is not appropriate for union recognition to be conceded.
2. Arguably the majority of staff indicated through the ballot that no change was necessary. The Company, however, favours the existence of a formal internal structure for communication and has put together a Works Committee for that purpose.
3. All Company depots elsewhere have Works Committees and they have been found to work very well.
4. The majority of staff in Famac, Dublin want the Works Committee to work. There is a conflict in the concept of operating the Committee and recognising the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
Following the written and oral submissions made by both parties, the Court recommends that the Company accords the right to the Union to represent their members in its employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
16th May, 1996______________________
M.K./U.S.
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.