Download - Trade union recognition
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Trade Union Recognition in Ireland
SASE 2006, Trier
Patrick Gunnigle & Michelle O’Sullivan,
University of Limerick
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Introduction
• Union decline since early 1980s• Linked to structural changes in employment,
MNCs, increased employer opposition • Irish trade union strategies at stemming decline
– a) merger activity b) increased resources in organising c) legislation
• Focus of presentation is on legislation
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Structure of Presentation
• Pattern of union membership & density in Ireland
• Traditional routes to union recognition• New legislation
– Background– Content
• Analysis of operation of legislation• Findings & Conclusion
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Union Membership/Density
• Increase in membership – 432,900 in 1994 to over 521,400 in 2004; (20%
rise)
• Decline in density – 45.8% in 1994 and 34.6% 2004 (11 percentage
points drop)
• Comparatively, density in Ireland can be ranked as being “middle to low”
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Sectoral unionisation
• Public sector – 70-80%• Private sector – 21-30%• 1994-2004:
– biggest drops in construction, transport, storage and communications and other production industries
– But these had higher density in 2004 than the private services sectors.
– Sectors with the lowest union density• services sub-sectors like hotels and restaurants, ‘other
services’ and agriculture.
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Traditional Routes to Union Recognition
1) Industrial action2) Dispute referred to Labour Court under Industrial
Relations Acts 1969-1990• What is Labour Court?
– State dispute resolution body– Labour Court almost always recommended union
recognition– But compliance with Labour Court recommendations in
union recognition cases low• 30% compared with 75% in other cases
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Background to New Legislation
• Trade union body ICTU lobbied the social partners for legislation
• ‘High-level Group’ established with reps of govt depts, employers, unions, IDA Ireland (responsible for attracting FDI)
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
New Legislation
• Code of Practice in Voluntary Dispute Resolution
• Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001• Cases only about terms and conditions of
employment & the dispute resolution & disciplinary procedures
• Explicitly excludes arrangements for collective bargaining
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Amended legislation
• Trade unions unhappy with operation of legislation– Amendment sought
• 2004– Ant-victimisation Code of Practice
– Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004
– Shortened procedures; set overall time frame of 26 weeks
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Stages in Process
• Phase 1: ‘Voluntary stage’– Where negotiating arrangements not in
place in a company, union can submit referral to the Labour Relations Commission
• Phase 2: ‘Fallback mechanism’– If no resolution found, union can submit a
case to the Labour Court under Act– Preliminary hearing: criteria fulfilled?– If yes, Court investigates & issues
recommendation
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Stages in Process
• Phase 3– Case unresolved after
recommendation – union can submit case for Labour Court determination
• Phase 4– If determination not implemented,
enforcement order from Circuit Court
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Operation of Legislation
1. How many cases referred under Phase 1 (LRC) & Phase 2 (Labour Court)?
2. How many Labour Court determinations have been issued?
3. Are unions using the new legislation or older legislation?
4. Are unions targeting particular sectors?5. Are MNCs affected by legislation?
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Phase 1: Referrals to LRC to June 2005
Cases completed 55 (50%)
Company did not engage with process
24 (22%)
Cases ongoing 20 (18%)
Refferal withdrawn by union
10 (9%)
Total 109
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Phase 1: Cases Completed by LRC to June 2005
Issues referred to Labour Court
37 (67%)
All issues resolved at LRC
13 (24%)
Collective bargining negotiated
5 (9%)
Total 55
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Phase 2: Cases heard by Labour Court, 2002-2006
Year No. of cases No. of companies
2002 3 3
2003 9 8
2004 23 20
2005 45 34
2006 19 17
Total 99 82 (69 companies)
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Phase 2: Recommendations & Determinations
Year No. of recommendations
No. of binding determinations
2002 3 0
2003 6 0
2004 20 2
2005 29 13
2006 14 4
Total 72 19
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Traditional Route: Cases under Industrial Relations Acts 1969/90Year No. of cases
2002 3
2003 11
2004 2
2005 4
2006 2
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Sectoral breakdown of cases under new procedures
• Manufacturing: 28 cases– Pharmaceuticals, building materials, food
• Services: 39 cases– Retail, nursing homes, telecommunications,
transport, waste, crèches, printing
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Multi-national Influence on New Legislation
• Research has noted the increasing embeddedness of MNC influence in Irish business system
• IDA & American Chamber of Commerce– vocal on potential negative effects on FDI of
European style woks council or statutory union recognition
• Result: no statutory union recognition
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Effects of Legislation on Multi-nationals
• Two opposing hypotheses1) non-union multinational investors
were misled– procedures could dissuade foreign
investors
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Effects of Legislation on Multi-nationals
2) Little impact on the non-union sector
• Unions targeting relatively low paying indigenous firms rather than the larger multinationals
• unions unable to gain a foothold which would allow them to process a case for recognition
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Cases against Irish & MNC companies
Country of Origin Percentage of Cases
Ireland 63.6%
US 15%
UK 7.5%
Other EU 7.5%
Outside EU & US 3%
Unknown 3%
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Has legislation deterred FDI?
• UNCTAD World Investment Report 2004
• 1998– Average FDI $8,579m– 1.2% of global total
• 2003– Average FDI $25,497m– 4.6% of global total
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Effects on MNCs?
• 33% of cases are against MNCs– MNCs not immune from legislation– Unions targeting Irish & MNCs– But legislation not a strong deterrent of FDI
• Neither hypothesis is fully supported
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Summary of Findings
• Limited no. of cases settled in Phase 1• Greater reliance on Phase 2• No. of binding determinations low• Unions more satisfied after legislation was
amended– Before amendment: increased use of traditional route– After amendment: increased use of new procedures– Some support for previous research reporting
dissatisfaction of unions with 2001 Act
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Summary of Findings
• Now: traditional legislation almost abandoned
• Unions targeting particular sectors: mixture of ‘low hanging fruit’ & MNCs
Gunnigle & O’Sullivan, SASE 2006
Conclusion
• Unclear as yet if legislation will affect union density
• Employers unhappy with recent Labour Court decisions – may instigate change in future
• Further research: – Unions’ resource requirement for taking cases
– Integration of union strategies
– Examine effects of cases on union membership at enterprise level