FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH ESTATES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Trade union recognition for TEEU members.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 2003 the Union wrote to the Company seeking a meeting to discuss a number of issues in relation to its members terms and conditions of employment. In response the Company stated that, while it was agreeable to discuss any individual concerns the Union might have in relation to its members, the Company would not recognise the Union for collective bargaining purposes. On the 4th September, 2003 both parties attended a meeting at the Labour Relations Commission under the Code of Practice on Voluntary Disputes Resolution (S.I. No. 145 of 2000) but agreement was not reached on the issue of Union recognition. On the 16th September, 2003 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 27th November, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union request for negotiating rights to represent its members employed by the Company is a fair and reasonable one. The Union has been patient and courteous and has tried to accommodate the Company in its ideological difficulties on this matter.
2. The Union attended the Labour Relations Commission under S.I. No. 145 of 2000. However, the Company, having agreed to discuss the issue of Union recognition, then sought to have it removed from the agenda.
3. The parent company of Irish Estates Management i.e Irish Life has a long and progressive history of dealing with negotiating with trade unions.
4. The Company operates a deduction at source scheme for Union members' subscriptions.
5. In this era of social partnership and the constructive manner in which the Union has approached the issue it is at a loss to understand the Company position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has acknowledged the workers' rights to join a Union and is willing to entertain Union representation on individual matters e.g. disciplinary investigations, or employee grievance procedures. The Company reserves the right to refrain from collective bargaining with the Union.
2. The Company has made genuine efforts to address terms and conditions of staff and has put in place improved consultations and information mechanisms with the employee forum which more than adequately addresses ongoing staff concerns.
3. The Company has indicated its willingness to utilise the dispute resolution procedures contained in S.I. No. 145 of 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties recommends that the Company recognise the Union's rights to represent the employees in its membership.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
9th December, 2003______________________
TODChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.