FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABS PUMPS LTD & ABS PUMPS (IRELAND) LTD (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Representation issue.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is in dispute over the representation of employees who transferred from ABS Pumps Limited to ABS Pumps (Ireland) Limited. The Union claims that it was agreed that the Shop Steward from ABS Pumps Limited would continue to represent these employees.
Management accept that it was agreed that SIPTU would continue to represent employees of the new Company. The Companies are separate legal and commercial entities and it argues that the staff representative should be an employee of the newly established Company.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 19th May, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th September, 2000 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 15th May, 2000 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was agreement that members transferring to the new Company would continue to have the same representative structures as before.
2. The employees concerned received "Letters of Comfort" which stipulated that "all industrial relations agreements and understandings shall apply to the new Company as they are today".
3. The Union was not made aware that there would be any difficulty in relation to Union representation prior to the establishment of the new Company.
4. The current agreement follows a previous precedent in ABS Pumps Ltd when another division/entity was established some years ago.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The two companies are completely separate, both legally and commercially. The aim of the new Company (ABS Pumps (Ireland) Ltd) is to create a separate corporate culture.
2. The Company cannot accept that a staff representative be an employee of a completely separate and different Company.
3. There is no management connection, or day-to-day involvement, or liaison between the two companies.
4. It is not acceptable to the Company that the majority of its employees are Dublin based and that a representative would have to travel from Wexford to attend meetings.
RECOMMENDATION:
There is conflicting evidence in relation to whether the agreement arrived at in this case meant that the claimants could or could not continue to be represented by the shop steward in ABS Pumps, in their new roles.
The written wording of the agreement is open to a number of interpretations. In the absence of a clear position on the wording of the agreement the Court has examined the Union's claim for representation as outlined above.
Having considered all the information before it the Court is of the view that the Company proposal is not unreasonable in the circumstances, and should be accepted.
If the claimants do not want to elect a representative from their group, representation should be provided directly by the appropriate trade union official.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th May, 2001______________________
LW/LWChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.