LCR23161

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

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

BACKGROUND:

The Union on behalf of its members referred this case to the Labour Court on 11 March 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 09 July 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

SIPTU is seeking that the company recognise it for the purpose of negotiating a collective agreement addressing procedural arrangements within which normal industrial relations can be conducted on matters associated with the terms and conditions of employment of its members.

In March 2024, SIPTU wrote to the company requesting a meeting to discuss their members terms and conditions of employment. The company replied to say that they were consulting with their employees, but did not offer to engage with SIPTU. Following further correspondence from SIPTU, the company replied to say the consultation process was ongoing and that employees had been awarded a pay increase more than the SIPTU claim. Again, there was no offer to meet with SIPTU.

In May 2024, due to the company’s failure to meaningfully engage the union, the matter was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place in November 2024, which was attended by both the union and company, however, no SIPTU members felt comfortable to attend. When the company sought information about the SIPTU members, information relating to SIPTU members (37) were given to the IRO.

The union submits that its members wish to engage collectively with the company on issues related to their employment. Since the conciliation conference the company has refused to engage with SIPTU. The company’s refusal to recognise SIPTU as the negotiating party regarding collective matters severely limits the ability of the employees to address grievances and negotiate terms of employment.

Recognition of SIPTU would establish a framework for constructive dialogue, fostering a mutually beneficial relationship between members and management. By recognising SIPTU and engaging in meaningful discussions with the union, the company can demonstrate its commitment to respecting the rights of its workforce and fostering a harmonious work environment.

For its part, the company submits that it has enjoyed excellent employee relations for 35 years with staff having direct access to Company owners daily. There is open two-way communication with regular group update meetings, a Live Suggestion Box Scheme in place and a recent employee survey to gather feedback. The company has a history resolving matters through internal co-operation and communication.

The company reflected on matters raised at the conciliation conference and says that it remains of the view that working directly with its employees has served the company and employees well. It is considering all options of direct employee engagement.

It confirmed to the Court that it has no issue if an employee wishes to avail of the support of a SIPTU official for grievance or disciplinary matters, which it says are not common within the company.

The company’s position is that not all employees want to be in a union. It believes that union membership has reduced since the Union first started recruiting members, and that recognition of the union for collective matters has potential to cause division in the company.

This matter before the Court is a unilateral referral by the Trade Union under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, under which it has agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

The company is not agreeable to acceding to the request for formal recognition for collective bargaining. While the union accepts that its membership has reduced due to some members leaving the company, it maintains that it still has a sizeable membership in the company. 

The Court, having considered the information before it, and taking account of all the circumstances of this claim, recommends that the company recognise the Union as the representative of those employees who are in membership of the Union and should engage with it in dealing with the issues which are the subject of this claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AL	______________________
14 July 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.