FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MSD AGVET (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX & COMPANY SOLICITORS) - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the court is for Union recognition on behalf of 6 members of MSF employed by the Company as Sales Representatives. The Company is a division of Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., and is involved in the sale of veterinary pharmaceutical products.
In December, 1996, the employees were informed that the business of MSD AGVET was in the process of being transferred to a new company, Merial Animal Health, which was being set-up as a joint venture with Rhone-Merieux SA, which is part of the Rhone Poulenc group.
As part of a world-wide joint venture between Merck and the Poulenc group of companies, the Merck group will transfer its animal health divisions to the Rhone Merieux which will then be renamed and headed by a new jointly-owned company, Merial Animal Health Ltd., (Merial AHL). The transfer date is the 1st August, 1997.
The employees were informed that there would be some changes to their conditions of employment under the new regime including their remuneration package and their pension entitlements. The Union sought discussions with the Company in relation to those matters but the Company refused to negotiate.
The Company claims that it set up a Temporary Consultative Council (TCC) to allow for consultation and liaison with the elected representatives of the employees affected by the transfer of undertakings. It claims that the TCC is adequate to meeting the needs of the
employees and that Union recognition at this time is not warranted.
The Union claims that the employees concerned (6) are dissatisfied with the TCC and want to be represented by the Union. It also claims that the employees are disadvantaged by not having the professional assistance of their Union in dealing with employment related matters.
The dispute was referred by the Union to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and it agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 28th July, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have a right to Union representation.
2. The TCC does not adequately meet the needs of the employees in the areas which are of concern to them. It is a consultative body and not a negotiating forum.
3. The parent Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme recognise trade unions at its manufacturing plant in Ballydine, Co. Tipperary.
4. It is the norm in the Irish industrial relations context that where 100% of a group of employees seek union representation that recognition and negotiation rights are agreed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has its own consultative process for dealing with employee grievances and can see no merit in duplicating representation by also having Union recognition.
2. The employees concerned have a representative on the TCC which adequately meets their needs in relation to employment matters.
3. The employees have been members of MSF for years but are only now seeking Union recognition.
4. The Company is satisfied that it has consulted adequately with the affected employees' representative in accordance with employment legislation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all the information before it is concerned at the timing of the hearing given that it was within a few days of the proposed transfer to the new Company.
The Court, therefore recommends that a new hearing of this case be held with the new Employer invited to attend, after which the Court will make its Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
28th August, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.