FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : R. A. PACAIST� TEO - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Collective Representation
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns Union recognition at the Company. SIPTU referred the case to the Labour Court on behalf of its members in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24 May, 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The members demand that the Company recognise SIPTU as their trade union for the purpose of collective bargaining.
2. The members wish to engage collectively with the Company on their terms and conditions of employment and procedure around grievance and disciplinary handling and they seek a Company/Union agreement.
3. The Employee Forum that the Company has endeavoured to set up has only recently been introduced despite the fact that the Company are in operation since 1997.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not recognise SIPTU or any other Trade Union.
2. The Company has an effective grievance procedure before which any issues can be raised.
3.The Company has an Employee Forum through which employees either individually or collectively may raise matters of concern.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the company recognise the Union as the representative of those employees who are in membership of the Union and should engage with it in dealing with employment related matters arising within the employment affecting those members.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
CC______________________
5 June 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.