FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : Q. FLEX LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Various issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1981 and is engaged in the manufacture of technical foam products. It is based in Navan, Co. Meath and employs 76 people.
On the 19th of January, 2001, SIPTU wrote to the Company requesting a meeting to discuss ten items. These included a procedural agreement, smoking policy, health and safety matters, Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, the hourly rate of pay, overtime rates, holiday entitlement, maternity leave/post natal leave/parental leave, the pension scheme and sick leave procedure. The Company refused to meet with the Union, on the grounds that only a small minority of the workers had joined the Union, while the majority of staff did not wish to join.
The Union informed the Company on the 13th of March, 2001, that a strike would commence on the 29th of March, 2001. A one-day stoppage then took place. In May, 2001, the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Relations Commission but the Company declined an invitation to attend conciliation. The Union then referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th of March, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has two factories based in Navan. The Union represents 13 workers in the Mullaghboy plant, which amounts to in excess of 70% of the workforce.
2. The Company states that it respects the right of individual workers to join a trade union, yet it refuses to respect their wish to be professionally represented by that Union. Also, when it suits the Company, it uses professional representation itself.
3. The Company states that it has an open door policy, but this is misleading. Some members were confronted individually by management about joining the Union.
4. The Company sought to re-introduce a Works Council, which it had lapsed. However, the members informed Management that they were not interested in setting up a works council without the assistance of SIPTU. The Company would not agree to this.
5. The claimants are seeking the Court’s support for their claim to be professionally represented on matters related to their terms and conditions of employment. The Labour Court has frequently supported claims of this nature over the years. Because of the nature of the dispute, the Union does not see a value in the Court directing it to S.I. 145/2000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a family owned business, which has operated for 20 years, with excellent employee relations. It has an open door policy and any issues which arise are resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both sides, without the need for third party involvement.
2. Only 13 employees, from a workforce of 76 people, have chosen to join the Union. The Company respects the wish of people to join SIPTU, but would find it impossible to work with the Union, considering its approach and the lack of support among the majority of the workforce.
3. The Company has suffered greatly as a result of the strike and has lost business. A large number of SIPTU members, who were not employees of the Company, joined the picket line. They were very aggressive to the workers who passed the picket and one worker was hit on the head by a placard.
4. The Company has examined the issues raised in the Union’s letter of the 19th of January, 2001. The following is the current position:
Smoking policy:A smoking facility is supplied and workers are paid for a special 7 minute smoking afternoon break. Those who do not take the break are paid a non-smoking bonus.
Health and Safety matters:There are routine inspections by the Health and Safety Authority and the insurance company. Following an inspection, the only issue which needed to be rectified was to turn down the volume of the radio.
P.P.F.:The Company has always supported the national wage agreements and will continue to do so.
Hourly rate of pay:The Company rates are above average for this type of work. The lowest rate is €7.58 per hour, which applies to only 8% of the employees.
Holiday entitlements:The Company complies with its legal obligations with regard to holidays and annual leave.
Maternity leave/Post natal leave/Parental leave:The Company is committed to meeting all current and future regulations.
Pension scheme:The pension scheme is available to all employees who are employed for over one year. The pension also has a Death-in-service dimension.
Sick leave procedure:Due to the high level of absenteeism, the Company does not operate a sick pay scheme. This is not out of line with others in the industry. However, if workers are interested in contributing to one, the Company would consider it, in particular for long-term sickness cover.
5. Although volunteers have not yet come forward, the Company is committed to re-introduce the Works Committee. The Court is requested not to recommend trade union recognition, but to recommend that the small number of SIPTU members should work within the Company’s existing information and consultative structures.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is a case of a Union contacting a Company seeking to have a meeting on behalf of its members to discuss various issues. When such a meeting was refused, the Union proceeded to take industrial action against the Company. The Court is dismayed at the action of the Union in taking such industrial action without exhausting the newly agreed procedures for dealing with such issues.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that all available avenues of dispute resolution should be utilised by the parties prior to bringing the matters before the Court. The Court is not satisfied that this has been done in this case. Therefore, the Court recommends that the various issues referred to the Court should be progressed as per the procedures outlined in S.I. 145 Industrial Relations Act, 190 (Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution) (Declaration) Order, 2000, and that the Company should co-operate with this process.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd April, 2002______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.