FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SMARTPLY EUROPE LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Coillte Teoranta. Coillte Teoranta operates in forestry and related businesses, owning approximately 440,000 hectares of forestland in Ireland. The Company is a significant user of Coillte's sustainable forestry resources. The Company commenced production at the manufacturing plant in Waterford in 1996.
Over the last 12 months 35 people have joined the Union. In mid January, 2003 the Union contacted the HR Manager of the Company requesting a meeting regarding one of its members. The Company informed the Union that there was no provision for involvement of external representation. The Company position in this regard remained unchanged throughout 2003.
During 2004 the Company held a workplace ballot on the issue of joining a union. The ballot went in favour of remaining non-unionised.
From October, 2003 some Union members had entered into the Company's disciplinary process and had sought Union representation. The Company would not meet with the Union.
The issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of March, 2004, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of June, 2004. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union were denied the opportunity to put their position to the employees prior to the ballot on unionisation taking place.
2. Members have experienced difficulties in attempting to raise issues of concern to them resulting in disciplinary action being taken and the dismissal of one member.
3. The Company must recognise the rights and wishes of the employees to be represented by the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company organised the ballot on union membership which was carried out by external scrutineers. The Company have accepted the outcome of that ballot which produced a narrow majority against union membership.
2. The Company will review the position in a years time and hold a new ballot and will uphold the result.
3. The Company emphasises a direct relationship with employees without the involvement of a third party. The Company has attempted to engage certain staff groups in the proposed Employee Representative groups.
.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court is a claim by the Union, on behalf of its members in the process operator grade, for the right to represent its members. The Company, following a ballot which included employees in the process operative and technical grades decided against granting such representation rights, as the majority did not vote in favour of Union representation at this time.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that the Company should recognise the right of the Union to represent those employees of the Company which it has in membership.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th June, 2004______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.