Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94161 Case Number: LCR14495 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KINGSPAN GENERAL STEEL PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning Union Recognition.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the Union's position is reasonable. Accordingly
the Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union's right
to represent those employees it has in membership.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94161 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14495
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
KINGSPAN GENERAL STEEL PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Union Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. Kingspan G.S.P. Limited commenced operation in 1976,
producing steel oil tanks, petrol tanks, and agricultural
tractor mounted cement mixers. Currently it is involved in
the manufacture of metal spinnings for its own use and for
sale to manufacturers of slurry tanks, pressure vessels, and
industrial fuel oil and underground petrol tanks, mainly for
the home market. Since 1992, it has entered the U.K. market
with rotationally moulded plastic storage tanks. It employs
approximately 80 employees.
In September, 1993, approximately 25 workers employed by the
Company joined the Union. On 20th September, 1993, and 8th
October, 1994, the Union wrote to management seeking the
right to represent the workers concerned. The Company
rejected this request as it maintained that a minority of
staff were in the Union, while the majority were represented
by an elected works committee.
The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court on 11th
March, 1994, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990, and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9th
June, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management has made no effort to meet the Union to
discuss representation and negotiating rights on behalf
of workers concerned. The Union has a policy of dealing
honourably with companies where it has organised
membership.
2. Many workers have sought the assistance of the Union in
relation to working conditions and industrial relations
within the plant. The Union requests the Court to make
a recommendation that, in the interests of good staff
relations, the Union be granted recognition to enable it
represent the workers concerned in accordance with
normal procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1984 the Company has met regularly with an elected
works committee with regard to pay and conditions of
employment. The works committee has representatives of
each department in the works.
2. The works committee arrangement has proved successful
for both management and employees, particularly where it
facilitated the much-needed flexibility which allowed
the Company to re-develop and to establish products
which made it less dependent on the home market. This
flexibility also allowed the Company to increase its
workforce to its present level of 80 employees.
3. Conceding union recognition would seriously damage the
excellent employee relations climate within the Company,
leading as it would to two distinct negotiating bodies
purporting to represent the workforce.
4. Management respects the right of any of its employees to
join a trade union. However, it is the Company's view
that the vast majority of the workforce is satisifed
with the works committee arrangement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the Union's position is reasonable. Accordingly
the Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union's right
to represent those employees it has in membership.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th July, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.