FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GE HEALTHCARE LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Union recognition of SIPTU to represent its members individually & collectively.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for recognition by the Company for the purpose of individual and collective bargaining. In June 2009 the Union was approached by employees of the Company wishing to join the Union. It is the Union's claim that it accepted them into membership on a confidential basis due to concerns about how the Company would respond. The Union wrote to the Company pointing out that GE Corporate Policy fully recognised the right of employees to be represented by their Trade Union. The Company's position is that it has well established individual and collective communication channels which work successfully and are endorsed by the majority of employees. The individual grievance procedures operate in compliance with the code of practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution SI 146/2000.
On the 27th May, 2010 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th November, 2010.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The GE Corporate Policy fully recognises their workers rights to be represented by a trade Union. GE Healthcare Cork is ignoring its own Corporate Policy and denying workers their right to be represented collective bargaining purposes.
2 The Company's handbook for 2010 deals with grievance and disciplinary procedures. There is no provision for trade union representation. These procedures are significantly flawed and out of line with SI 146/2000.
3 Recent case law from the European Court of Human Rights deals comprehensively with the rights of workers to be represented by trade unions for the purposes of collective bargaining.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company operates a direct relationship and partnership with its workers through a series of comprehensive communications channels. The Company recognises the right of any individual employee to join a trade union.
2 The majority of employees favour the direct relationship with the Company as is evidenced by staff surveys in 2009. A staff petition organised by the workers also showed a large majority supporting the Company's direct communication approach.
3 The Company solicits worker feedback, listens to it and acts on it to drive change. There is no reason to change the present arrangement and furthermore the majority of workers have expressed the opinion that change would not be welcome.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having carefully considered the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties in this dispute, recommends that the Company recognise the Union for collective bargaining purposes in respect of its members employed in GE Healthcare Cork. The Court further recommends that the Company and Union meet to agree a framework for the orderly management of such collective bargaining including provisions for the resolution of disputes between the parties.
The Court notes that the issue of individual representation rights was resolved in the course of the hearing.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
25th November, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.