FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DAHLSTROM MANUFACTURING LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is an engineering and metal fabrication shop located in Coolock. It employs approximately 40 workers, including clerical, administrative and shop floor/production employees. In February, 1994, a number of the production workers joined the Union. The Company at present has an internal works committee to deal with any problems of an industrial relations nature. In April, 1995, the Union branch secretary wrote to the Company stating that the majority of the hourly paid workforce had joined the Union and were seeking Union recognition. The Company responded by saying that a ballot had been conducted amongst all the workers and that the ballot was 20 to 17 in favour of retaining the works committee over Union recognition. The Union is only seeking to represent the production workers.
The Union again wrote to the Company in February, 1997 seeking Union recognition. The Union claims that the Company rejected a request for a meeting. Since the referral, a ballot was held by the Company on the 12th of January, 1998. Workers were asked if they wished to maintain the present management/employee representation. Twelve voted in favour with five against. On the 29th of September, the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of January, 1998. The Union has agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The majority of the production workers are organised into the Union. Clerical workers are not in the Union. In the ballot in January, 1998, 11 production workers boycotted the ballot as it involved all employees, not just production workers.
2. The Union has been seeking recognition for 4 years and has used all reasonable avenues to persuade management to concede this right. The present works committee has not really been successful for some years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management reserves the right to communicate directly with the staff in the Company. Conditions of employment in the Company are better than conditions applying in similar companies which have union recognition. The majority of the staff wish to retain the present works committee. It would require the unanimous agreement of all staff, not just the production workers, to change this situation. In a ballot held in January, 1998, 12 workers voted in favour of retaining the works committee with only 5 voting against. There would be no problem if an employee wished to join the works committee to represent the workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of the information presented, the Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union on behalf of the employees in membership.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
30th January, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.