FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MERIAL ANIMAL HEALTH LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY TOM MALLON BL INSTRUCTED BY ARTHUR COX, SOLICITORS) - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR15622 concerning union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the sale of veterinary pharmaceutical products. The claim for union recognition and negotiating rights is made on behalf of six workers employed by Merial Animal Health. The workers were formerly employed as sales representatives by MSD AGVET which was taken over by Merial Animal Health. The Union's original claim (against MSD AGVET) was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in July, 1997. The Court in LCR15622 which was issued on the 28th of August, 1997 recommended as follows:-
"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".
The transfer to Merial Animal Health was effected on 1st of August, 1997. On the 29th of August, 1997 the Union sought a further Labour Court hearing under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 16th of December, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The majority of the workers concerned, who form a clearly identifiable employee group, have expressed a desire to be represented by the Union. This clearly expressed wish should be accepted by the Employer as fair and reasonable.
2. There are significant employment related matters which require negotiations between the workers and the Company (details supplied to the Court).
3. It is the norm in an industrial relations context that where a majority of a group of workers seek Union representation that a negotiating arrangement is agreed.
4. The Consultative Committee which was established by the Company does not adequately meet the needs of the workers in respect of issues of concern to them. The workers are convinced of the necessity for employer/employee relations to be conducted on the basis of collective bargaining through their trade union.
5. The sales representatives concerned are being treated unfairly when compared to similar employees at the MSD AGVET plant in Ballydine, Co. Tipperary where that Company negotiates with a Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In March, 1997 a Temporary Consultative Council (TCC) was established. It allows for proper consultation and liaison with the elected representatives of workers affected by the transfer. Notice of the TCC was sent to all workers. The MSD AGVET workers in Ireland, and in particular the workers concerned participated in the TCC voting. One of their members was elected as a member of the Council. Consultative meetings have been held on seven occasions (details supplied to the Court). They clearly show that the TCC representatives were satisfied with the way in which various issues were dealt with.
2. The Company has put in place sufficient and appropriate employee representation structures and has adequately consulted with workers' representatives in accordance with legislation. The Company has complied with the appropriate provisions of the safe guarding of Employers Rights on Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1980. At no time have the workers concerned expressed dissatisfaction to the Company at the representation and communication channel provided by the TCC.
3. No workers have had their terms and conditions of employment changed as a result of the transfer. The only differences affecting workers relate to the pension scheme and stock options. These matters are being addressed.
4. The Company intends to set up a permanent Joint Consultative Committee to represent the views of and provides a communication channel for all workers in the Company. To recognise MSF as the representative of the six workers would be a costly and time-consuming duplication.
5. The recognition of the Union by MSD AGVET in Ballydine is irrelevant. The workers concerned are new employed by Merial Animal Health and have no connection with MSD other than that their terms and conditions of employment with Merial and the same terms and conditions that they enjoyed at MSD.
RECOMMENDATION:
When this case was before the Court originally in July, 1997, the Company was going through a change of ownership as a result of a merger. Following the merger and the subsequently transfer of ownership, the Court hearing was reconvened with the new owners.
At the original hearing and in its submission to the Court at the second hearing, the Company argued it was "not appropriate for the Court to make a recommendation for recognition before the new joint venture company and the J.C.C. are finally established. Until the end of the 1st quarter of 1998, there would be no opportunity to assess the system put in place in Merial Animal Health Limited." The claim was made on behalf of all the six sales representatives.
Having considered all the written and oral submissions it is the Courts' view that the parties have had sufficient time to assess the working of the T.C.C. and the J.C.C. at this stage.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company and the Union meet to review the working of the J.C.C.
If the parties fail to reach agreement that J.C.C. is acceptable as the negotiating forum for the claimants, then the Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union's request to represent the six employees it has in membership, if the employees still so desire.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th March, 1997______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.