This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

  Return to Search

LCR23240

null

CD/25/636
DECISION  NO.  LCR23240 

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015

SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969


PARTIES:

CARLOW BREWING COMPANY LTD.

(REPRESENTED BY HR DUO)

AND

 22 WORKERS

(REPRESENTED BY SIPTU)



DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms Connolly
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Ms Hannick



SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 20(1) Industrial Relations Act 1969.


BACKGROUND:

SIPTU referred this matter to the Labour Court on 25 August 2025 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 12 March 2026.

 





RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court is a unilateral referral by the Trade Union under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

  1. The Trade Union seeks union recognition on behalf of its members employed by the company.
  2. Union members have raised legitimate workplace concerns and require real engagement to ensure those issues are resolved.
  3. The reasonable approach of members to seek resolution of their genuine concerns and issues, via the establishment of a collective dispute resolution mechanism or procedure, is justification for union recognition for the purpose of collective bargaining.

 

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

  1. The Company has operated without significant workplace issues for the past 30 years.
  2. Despite challenging market conditions, the Company has provided enhanced pay rates and benefits. It rewards individual excellence and offers generous support for further education and training in areas relevant to the operation.
  3. The Company is not agreeable to acceding to the request for union recognition or collective bargaining. It has no issue with an employee seeking to be accompanied by a union official in matters relating to grievance and discipline.

 

RECOMMENDATION :

The Court’s function, when hearing referrals under section 20(1) of the 1969 Act is to hear the parties and set forth its opinion on how the matters in dispute between the parties should be resolved. The workers in this case have agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation; the employer is not bound to accept the recommendation but may do so should it choose.

The Trade Union seeks to represent its members collectively and individually on issues related to their employment. The Trade Union has submitted that it represents a substantial proportion of the  general operatives employed by the company. The company submits that it employs between 30 and 35 employees at this level.

In all the circumstances of this claim, the Court recommends that the company should recognise the Union as the chosen representative of employees in membership of the Union. The Court further recommends that the parties enter into negotiations with a view to concluding a procedural agreement within which normal industrial relations business will be conducted between them.

The Court so recommends.

 

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Katie Connolly
TH ______________________
20th March 2026 Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.