THE Labour Court has told the Elan Corporation it should recognise SIPTU. The pharmaceuticals giant, which employs 750 people at its Athlone plant and announced pre tax profits of £56.8 million last week, has told the court that US investors would withdraw if it had to recognise a union.
SIPTU is expected to seek an early meeting with Elan to discuss the recommendation. Both sides declined to comment yesterday.
The union is one of many affiliates of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions concerned at the growth of non union companies in the Republic. The ICTU has told the Government that union recognition will have to be addressed in any national agreement to succeed the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
The union invoked section 20 of the 1990 Industrial Relations Act to bring a recognition case before the court after the company refused to meet it and negotiate an agreement.
However, in invoking section 20 SIPTU had to give a commitment to abide by the recommendation.
The court said in return for recognition SIPTU should agree to conclude a "security of supply agreement" with the company to allay Elan's fears of disruption by industrial disputes.
SIPTU has recruited a significant number of members at the Athlone plant and told the Labour Court it now represents a majority of the permanent operatives.
The company did not attend the court but made a written submission. In it the company said it was in a unique position in that it made preparations on behalf of pharmaceutical companies located outside the State, which required absolute guarantees of continuity of supply.
Production necessitated total flexibility from the workforce. In some circumstances there might not be time to discuss changes with a union, let alone negotiate change.
If it agreed to recognise a union the company would be unable to offer the necessary guarantees to customers of security of supply and flexibility.
It also said that it had set up an internal representative council which 91 per cent of employees accepted. Conservative US investors would shift their funds elsewhere if it recognised a union.
SIPTU told the court it represented employees in the most advanced technological sectors in the State. It had concluded flexibility agreements in such companies which did not hamper their effective and efficient operation.
These included security of supply agreements. It was prepared to make a similar agreement with Han if required.
The union was committed to a "partnership" approach to industrial relations. The company had no reason to fear a relationship with the union based on mutual respect and a commitment to the development of the company.
The union said a commitment by both sides to the concepts of consultation, negotiation, independent conciliation and arbitration was essential. It could not accept that the representative council, set up last year after the union sought recognition, was an effective representative forum.
The right to organise, be represented and have collective agreements was implicit in the Constitution and in the International Labour Organisation Convention on Freedom of Association.
If SIPTU agrees to guarantee security of supply the company may decide to recognise the union. Alternatively it might opt for a high risk strategy and continue to ignore the union. Labour Court recommendations are not binding.