Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86638 Case Number: LCR10841 Section / Act: S67 Parties: C & C LTD - and - ITGWU |
Interpretation of Agreement.
Recommendation:
7. The Court is satisifed that the Union's interpretation of
Clause 4 of the Agreement dated 29th January, 1985, as drafted is
correct.
However, the Court is aware of the importance to the Company of
the contract with the 3rd Party (named) and notwithstanding its
finding above recommends that the Union agree to allow collection
by hackers pending renegotiation of the Agreement.
Immediate negotiation on the re-drafting of the Agreement should
take place between all the parties (including the named 3rd party)
with the objective of amending Clause 4 of its above agreement to
provide for a situation when the existing provision of clause 4
cannot be met alternative methods of delivery be agreed (including
the option of Cantrell and Cochrane providing delivery on a
recoupable basis).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th November, 1986 Evelyn Owens
T.McC./P. Deputy Chairman
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86638 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10841
CC861279 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10841
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (MUNSTER) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Interpretation of Agreement.
Background:
2. This dispute concerns the interpretation of clause 4 of an
agreement between the Company and Union in relation to bottling
for another company and involves 21 production workers at the
Company's plant in Cork. The purpose of this agreement was to
ensure the installation of a P.E.T. line at the Company's Cork
plant.
3. Clause 4 of the Agreement provides for the delivery/collection
by the other Company's personnel of products bottled by the
Company for that Company. The clause is question reads as
follows:-
"Product bottled on contract for the other Company will be
collected from Cork by the other Company personnel. No
claim will arise from Cantrell & Cochrane (Munster) Ltd.
personnel to such delivery work, as this would be in
direct conflict with agreements between the other Company
and its unions".
The Agreement came into operation in July, 1975.
4. The other Company now uses outside contractors to collect
bottled products from its premises. The Union says this is in
breach of clause 4 of the Agreement in question which it
interprets to mean that bottled product can only be collected by
employees of the other Company. This is rejected by the Company
and as no agreement could be reached at local level the question
of interpretation of the Agreement was referred, on 21st July,
1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Following
a conciliation conference, which took place on 31st July, 1986,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. Due to the unavailability of the parties the
Court was unable to hear the dispute until 4th November, 1986, in
Cork.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) It was clearly stated at the time of the agreement
that delivery and collection of the product in
question would be undertaken by personnel of the other
Company and that this work could not be claimed by the
transport drivers of the Company here concerned,
otherwise the P.E.T. plant would not be installed in
the Company's Cork plant. This is provided for in
clause 4 of the agreement and it was on the basis that
the word 'personnel' in clause 4 of the agreement
meant the other company's workers that the agreement
was accepted by the workers here concerned.
(ii) As the specific proposals to exclude the Company's
workers from the work in question and allow it to be
carried out by the other Company's workers were drawn
up by the Company, the Union fails to understand how
any outside haulier can be involved at this stage.
(iii) The Union's interpretation of clause 4 of the
agreement is a valid one and should be upheld.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) It is bad industrial relations practice and a serious
reflection on the ability of Cork distribution
personnel to honour the Company's contractual
commitments to the other Company, if the imposition of
a veto by the Union, after twelve months of the
contract coming into force, were to be maintained.
(b) This veto by the Cork distribution staff can bring no
material benefit to them, but as a consequence, could
lead to serious problems for the Company if the
contract is lost.
(c) The other Company is allowing the Company time to
negotiate the removal of this restriction but if the
Company fails, that company may source its production
elsewhere in the future.
(d) The temporary interruption with the proper functioning
of the collection of products is a cause of problems
for the other Company, which clearly could not be
sustained indefinitely. The obligation therefore to
bring the restriction to an end bears heavily on this
Company and, understandably, has a short time limit.
(e) Earnings of Cork distribution personnel are not in any
way affected by whether the other Company's personnel
or independent contractors collect bottled products
under the agreement which is the subject of this
dispute.
(f) In all the circumstances, the system of collection of
the other Company's bottled products as it operated
for the period June, 1985 to June, 1986 should be
resumed.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court is satisifed that the Union's interpretation of
Clause 4 of the Agreement dated 29th January, 1985, as drafted is
correct.
However, the Court is aware of the importance to the Company of
the contract with the 3rd Party (named) and notwithstanding its
finding above recommends that the Union agree to allow collection
by hackers pending renegotiation of the Agreement.
Immediate negotiation on the re-drafting of the Agreement should
take place between all the parties (including the named 3rd party)
with the objective of amending Clause 4 of its above agreement to
provide for a situation when the existing provision of clause 4
cannot be met alternative methods of delivery be agreed (including
the option of Cantrell and Cochrane providing delivery on a
recoupable basis).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th November, 1986 Evelyn Owens
T.McC./P. Deputy Chairman