INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
GUARDRITE SECURITY LIMITED
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Union Recognition
2. The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between Guardrite Security Ltd and SIPTU over the Company's refusal to recognise the Union's right to represent the industrial relations interests of its members, including negotiations on pay and conditions of employment.
- The Union referred the issues to the The Labour Relations Commission. The Company declined an invitation to attend a conciliation conference. The Union subsequently referred the matter to the Labour Court 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 the 28th March 2003. The Company did not attend the Court hearing but sent in written submissions to the Court.
3.1 On the 29th October 2002 the Union wrote to the Company advising them that a number of their employees had joined SIPTU. The Union forwarded a draft Company/Union memorandum of agreement but received no response from the Company.
2. SIPTU is the main Union representing workers employed in the Irish private security industry The workers are of the opinion that it is in their best interests to become members of the Union and to have the advise and service of the Union available to them. The Union have an obligation to act on the members behalf and expect to be afforded the same rights of recognition and representation from the Company as it currently receives from other security companies.
3. The position taken by the Company not to recognise the Union runs counter to the Declaration of Mutual Recognition signed between the employer and worker representatives of the private Security Industry at European level.
4. By not recognising the Union the Company are effectively frustrating the exercise of their Irish employees constitutional right to be members of a trade union.
The Company did not attend the hearing but made a written submission. The Court having considered the information before it recommends that the Company accept the Union's right to represent those employees in its membership.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th April, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.