FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NOVOSTRAT LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Terms and Conditions of Employment
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of approximately 60 workers who wish to be represented by SIPTU for collective bargaining in relation to terms and conditions of employment. The Company, which manufactures polyethylene foam for the construction industry, employs approximately 150 workers, the majority of whom are Polish. Historically, the Company has avoided formal recognition of a trade union for collective bargaining purposes.
The Union referred its case to the Labour Court on the 19th May, 2008, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th July, 2008. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union offered to talk directly to the Company or under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission in relation to the claim but the Company refused on both occasions.
2. The Union is seeking that its members will have fair and equitable terms and conditions of employment, including a fair wage.
3. The Company has sought to deal with procedural aspects of employment by the issue of its Employee Handbook. However, the Handbook was not negotiated with the Union or workers but drafted solely by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates a Works Council and Grievance Procedure, details of which are in the Employee Handbook. It does not recognise a trade union but does have a practice of collective bargaining negotiations with the workers for the purpose of setting terms and conditions of employment.
2. The Company has made bona fide efforts to address any matters relating to terms and conditions of employment of its staff.
3. A large number of workers signed a document stating that they did not want to be represented by the Union for collective bargaining purposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
In this case the existence of a trade dispute between the parties was put in issue. By consent between the parties the Court undertook to interview a representative sample of the workforce, chosen at random, for the purpose of ascertaining if a dispute existed on the question of collective bargaining arrangements.
The Court interviewed 27 employees of the Company. As a result of these interviews the Court is satisfied that a body of the Company's workforce wish to be represented by SIPTU in collective bargaining with the Company for the purpose of fixing their rates of pay and conditions of employment. The Company has refused to recognise the Trade Union for negotiating purposes and, in consequence, a valid trade dispute exists between the parties.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the Company recognises the Union for the purpose of negotiating rates of pay and other conditions of employment of its members. The Court further recommends that the parties should meet at an early date for the purpose of concluding a framework agreement within which their further working relations should be regulated.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th August, 2008______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.