Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2003

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17443

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/685
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17443
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969



PARTIES :
SABREWATCH LIMITED

- AND -

GROUP OF WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
SUBJECT:
1. Union recognition.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Company was established in 1992 and provides security services for a number of companies in Dublin, e.g. Marks and Spencer, and Brown Thomas. It employs approximately 35 workers.

In September, 2002, the Union wrote to the Company advising it that a number of workers had joined the Union and, as a result, the Union wished to discuss the issue of Union recognition. On 27th of September, 2002, the Company wrote to the Union stating that it had decided against recognising the Union at the present time. The Company also declined an invitation to attend a conciliation conference at the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). As a result, the Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 27th of November, 2002, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company sought the assistance of the Advisory Service of the LRC but the Union was not agreeable.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of March, 2003. The Company did not attend the hearing but provided a written submission. In it, the Company stated that there was no evidence that the Union represented 15 workers (as claimed). It also stated that pay and conditions were good, the National Agreements had always been paid and that any disputes were dealt with through the grievance procedure without the need for Union representation.

(The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation.)


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. In the past few years, a growing number of security officers have sought Union representation. Having taken the workers concerned into membership, the Union had an obligation to act on their behalf.

2. The Union has always acted in a reasonable manner with the Company. The position taken by the Company is out of step with the European Joint Declaration on Mutual Recognition agreed in 1999.



RECOMMENDATION:

The Court notes that the Company has declined to participate in the hearing to investigate this dispute but did make a written submission outlining its position.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, and having regard to the level of Trade Union membership within the employment, the Court recommends that the Company should recognise the Union for all industrial relations purposes in respect of those in membership of the Union.

The Court further recommends that the parties should meet at the earliest opportunity for the purpose of negotiating and agreeing a framework agreement within which normal industrial relations business will be transacted between them.









Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
19th March, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow