Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93311
Case Number: LCR14116
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: GLENEAGLE HOTEL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Union Recognition.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and oral
evidence given at the hearing, the Court recommends that the
Company recognise the Union in respect of its members in the
employment and recognises the right of the members to be
represented by the Union in negotiations on pay and conditions
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93311 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14116
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: GLENEAGLE HOTEL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union Recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1991 a number of workers joined the Union. On the
6th August, 1991 the Union wrote to the Hotel and sought a meeting
to discuss Union recognition. Numerous local meetings were held
but the parties could not reach agreement. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation
conferences were held on the 7th October, 1992 and 21st April,
1993. As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission in May, 1993. A
Court hearing was held on the 15th May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the conciliation conference of October, 1992
draft proposals put forward by the Industrial Relations
Officer were considered by the parties. Management intimated
to the Union that recognition would be granted but
subsequently stated that head of departments would be excluded
and that Union subscriptions would not be deducted at source.
This was unacceptable to the Union.
2. The Union is seeking recognition for all its members and
negotiating rights in respect of wage levels and conditions of
employment the same as it has in other hotels in the region.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was hopeful of finalising a comprehensive
agreement with the Union. However, following numerous
meetings and two conciliation conferences the Company felt
that it was not a positive development to recognise the Union
as the main negotiating body for workers in the hotel.
4. 2. The Union does not represent a significant number of staff
and therefore Management chooses not to afford recognition.
Many workers in the employment have stated that they do not
desire to be represented by the Union. Negotiations are
presently under way to form a staff association.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and oral
evidence given at the hearing, the Court recommends that the
Company recognise the Union in respect of its members in the
employment and recognises the right of the members to be
represented by the Union in negotiations on pay and conditions
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
24th June, 1993 -----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.