FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : RAYCHEM INTERNATIONAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been in business since 1978 and was recently taken over by Tyco International Limited. It employs approximately 220 permanent workers, 100 direct sub-contractors and 60 temporary workers at present. In 1992/93, following a claim for union recognition, the Company set up an internal Works Council, which was made up of Company/workers representatives. Most of the worker representatives were SIPTU members. The Council continued until April, 1999, when it ceased to function. The Union claims that the reason for this is that its representatives resigned en masse because of difficulties they had experienced with Management in trying to pursue claims on behalf of their colleagues. The Union also claims that some of its members were being victimised by the Company, something that the Company denies.
The Union referred the issue to the Labour Court on the 30th of August, 1999, in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of September, 1999, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Works Council ceased to function because of Management's difficult and unco-operative attitude.
2. Following news of the take-over by Tyco International Limited, there was a rapid and substantial increase in Union membership. These members wish and deserve to be represented by the Union.
3. The Union wrote to the Company on the 14th of June, seeking a meeting regarding pay and conditions. The Company did not respond. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). Whilst the Company corresponded with LRC, no meeting or conference took place with the workers.
4. The Union branch office has received numerous complaints of a sudden change in attitude by supervisors, who are now behaving unreasonably towards members. At present, there is still no mechanism for members to have their concerns addressed by Management. Section 13 and 15 of the Company handbook guarantees the right of an individual to be represented by a Trade Union official.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. In 1993, the Labour Court adjudicated on the same issue and agreed that the Works Council was effective. It continued to work well for a period. However, in recent times the representation on the Council became more and more dominated by SIPTU members. This led to the Council becoming ineffective.
2. Since the Council ceased, Management has undertaken to communicate directly with the workforce, and all available data has been shared with employees.
3. It is intended to reconstitute a similar body to that of the Works Council via a forum which would serve to meet the business and employee needs. Direct communication with employees will still take place at the fortnightly plant meetings with Management. The forum would represent Union members and non-Union members on a proportional basis.
4. There has been no victimisation of workers. A small number of employees have had counselling discussions because of poor output performance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions presented by both parties, the Court recommends that the Company recognises the right of the Union to represent its members.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th October, 1999.______________________
CON/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.