LCR23011

FULL RECCOMENDATION

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Union Recognition Sought.

BACKGROUND:

The Workers referred this case to the Labour Court on 6th March 2024 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th June 2024.

WORKERS ARGUMENTS:

1. Collective bargaining is fundamental to ensuring fair and just employment practices. By recognizing SIPTU and engaging in meaningful discussions with its members, Decotek Automotive can demonstrate its commitment to respecting the rights of its workforce and fostering a harmonious work environment.

EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Employer is fully committed to engaging with all of their employees. They will continue to do so directly and are demonstrating this position by introducing a Staff Association to represent their employees.  The Employer submits that they have a right not to recognize unions for collective bargaining purposes and that they have chosen to exercise that right.

RECCOMENDATION:

This matter comes before the Court as a referral by SIPTU Trade Union under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The referral was submitted on 6th March 2024.  At the commencement of the hearing the Employer as provided for in the Labour Court rules 2024 and relevant legislation, sought the consent of the Court to be represented by a Solicitor.

The Union in its submission to the Court stated that it represents members in the employment.  They had contacted the Employer at the behest of their members looking to engage in respect of their members terms and conditions of employment. The Employer responded indicating that they consult with their employees directly. The Siptu members dispute that there is any negotiation or even consultation with members directly. They went on to say that a newly set up Employees forum is not independent of the Employer. The Union are asking the Court to recommend that the Employer enter into meaningful negotiations with the Union in respect of its members terms and conditions of employment.

 The Employer in their submission to the Court stated that it had never recognised Trade Unions for collective bargaining purposes and maintained that it has a strong relationship with its employees and had engaged directly with them over the years. The representative for the Employer submitted to the Court that the complaint by SIPTU was in retaliation for the Employer setting up a Staff Association but was unable to elaborate on why they believed that was so. The Representative submitted that the Employer is exercising their right not to recognise unions for collective bargaining purposes and asked that the Court dismiss the Unions complaint.

 The Court sought clarifications from the parties in respect of the Staff Association and it was accepted that a meeting had been called in mid to late March 2024, where a presentation was given to employees about a new staff association being set up by the Employer.  Staff were invited to make nominations but could only nominate themselves. It was confirmed to the Court that the Employer had drawn up the rules for the Staff Association and over saw the elections to same. No engagement with the Staff association had happened yet as nominations were only sought in April 2024.  Prior to the setting up of this association the Employer had just informed staff of any changes to their terms and conditions of employment including changes to their rates of pay.

The Court, taking into account the submissions made to it and noting that the Employer was not opposed to using external expertise, recommends that the company recognise the Union as the representative of those employees who are in membership of SIPTU Trade Union and should engage with them in dealing with employment related matters arising within the employment affecting those members.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CC	______________________
15th July 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.