FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GREENSTAR LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Company's refusal to recognise SIPTU.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members in relation to recognition for industrial relations and collective bargaining purposes. The Company is a major provider of waste management and recycling services nationwide and operates from several depots located around the country.In 2010, the Company acquired Veolia, an environmental services company. Following its acquisition, Veolia became known as Greenstar Environmental Services (GES). GES was already unionised and is represented by SIPTU. Greenstar Ltd agreed to continue to recognise SIPTU for collective bargaining purposes in relation to its members in GES. It is the Union's contention that the two companies are now operating contiguously however some employees are afforded representation and others are not. The Union is now seeking full representation for all of its members. The Company rejects the Union's claim andwhile it accepts that its employees are entitled to join the Union, it reserves the right to negotiate directly with its employees regarding industrial relations issues. Agreement could not be reached at local level.
On the 4th May, 2011 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 9th August, 2011.The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that it is unfair for the Company to refuse to recognise SIPTU on behalf of all of its members in both Greenstar Limited andGreenstar Environmental Services.
2. The Union further contends that there are feelings of anger developing amongst a divided workforce where some employees are afforded Union representation and others are denied this right.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has agreed to recognise SIPTU for collective bargaining purposes on behalf of its members employed in GES. At this time the Company does not wish to extend Union recognition to all of its employees.
2.Management contends that there are internal procedures in place to deal with its employees directly and does not seek Union intervention into this practice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union for collective bargaining and industrial relations purposes in respect of its members in the employment.
The parties should meet at an early date for the purpose of concluding a collective agreement governing procedural and other matters relating to the implementation of this Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
30th August 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.