FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUTRICIA INFANT NUTRITION LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Breach of an Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company produces and packs infant milk formula in two sites based in Macroom and Wexford. The dispute concerns the terms of a 1997 Comprehensive Agreement with the Union at its Wexford plant, in particular recognition of SIPTU for collective bargaining purposes. The Union's case is that the Agreement, signed between the Company and four signatory unions - i.e. SIPTU, AMICUS, AEEU and TEEU - states that"all Nutricia personnel who are in trade union membership represented by the signatory trade unions"are covered by the Agreement. SIPTU currently represents eight workers at the Wexford plant. The Company's position is that only AMICUS and the TEEU have collective bargaining rights. SIPTU and the AEEU have the right to represent individuals.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th of September, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of December, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Nowhere in the Agreement does it state that SIPTU does not have collective bargaining rights. There have been a number of negotiations on a collective basis between the Company and Union since the agreement in 1997 (the Union supplied details to the Court).
2. The Agreement expressly states "Salaried staff may join either SIPTU or AMICUS (MSF)". The workers believe their interests are best serviced by SIPTU and do not want to join or be represented by any other Union in the plant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1991 the vast majority of staff belonging to SIPTU transferred to AMICUS. Since then all collective bargaining negotiations have been between the Company and AMICUS, or in the case of craft workers, with the TEEU.
2. The Company has continued to deal with SIPTU in relation to individual issues for the workers concerned. SIPTU has not been involved in collective bargaining with the Company since 1991.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court finds that the Company's refusal to meet with SIPTU is in breach of the comprehensive Company/Union Agreement and recommends that the Company should revert to the terms of that Agreement and recognise SIPTU for the purpose of collective bargaining.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
20th December, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.