Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87617 Case Number: LCR11369 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH STEEL LTD - and - ITGWU |
Alleged breach of agreement on the use of contractors.
Recommendation:
28. (i) The Court finds that prior to 1985 the union had
established, by custom and practice, the right to prior
consultation on the use of contractors and had come to
expect that contractors would not be introduced onto
the site unless agreement was reached.
(ii) However, the agreement of 1985 must be taken to replace
previous practice.
(iii) The Court believes that the dispute arose because the
parties had conflicting interpretations of the 1985
agreement, particularly clause 5 of the "efficiencies
document"
(iv) Reading clause 5 of the "efficiencies document" in the
context in which it was agreed it is clear that this
clause altered custom and practice regarding the use of
outside contractors and that the company was no longer
obliged to have the union's agreement before the
introduction of contractors on project work.
(v) The Court therefore finds that the union was not acting
in accordance with the existing agreements in taking
industrial action in the form of an overtime ban when
it objected to the use of the contractor on work which
both sides now agree was "project work".
(vi) The dispute could have been avoided if both sides had
discussed the issues at greater length prior to the
contractor's arrival on site and it appears to the
Court that the management did not emphasise clearly
enough to the union that it intended to go ahead with
its plans to use the contractor despite the union's
objection.
(vii) For these reasons the Court considers that it will help
the parties avoid similar disputes in the future if it
spells out the duties and responsibilities of the
parties under the present agreements on the use of
contractors
(viii)By virtue of clause 5 of the "efficiencies document"
the union has not the right to impede the use of
contractors on "project work". This means that where
project work is concerned the management should consult
with the unions in advance but if agreement is not
reached, management have the right to go ahead without
agreement and the union may take the matter through the
agreed procedure in clause 16.
(ix) On the other hand where the use of contractors has
implications for the manning levels in the plant, the
union should be consulted and agreement sought. If the
union does not agree, then the contractors should not
be brought on site and the provisions of the 1977
agreement continue to apply.
(x) In any event the union should be given all relevant
information on contracts, e.g. the work involved, size
of contract and duration.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87617 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11369
Section 67 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11369
Parties: IRISH STEEL LTD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Alleged breach of agreement on the use of contractors.
Background:
2. Before 1985, while there was no written agreement with the
ITGWU on their use, contractors were used only with the prior
agreement of the ITGWU and its co-operation.
3. One issue which involved the introduction of a contractor to
carry out shearing required 18 months of discussion before
agreement was finally reached. This proposal involved manning
implications and resulted in a written agreement specifically
covering shearing of scrap.
4. In 1985 following a serious dispute which threatened the
continued operation of the Company agreement was reached on the
terms outlined in the Labour Court recommendation LCR9896 as
amended by a letter of 23rd August 1985 from the Chief Executive.
5. As part of the 1985 deal the "height gang" was abolished and
its members re-assigned to other jobs. The "height gang" was a
group of employees who specialised in carrying out work on roofing
and the general maintenance of the buildings.
6. The Company's recollection is that when the "height gang" was
abolished it informed the union that thereafter the work would be
done by outside contractors. This is confirmed by the union. The
Union states, however, that it did not accept this position and
that they asked that the gang would be reconstituted when required
and given the work. No agreement was reached on the question.
7. In accordance with the terms of Clause G of the Court's
recommendation discussions took place on the recommendation and
the "efficiencies document" produced by the Company.
8. The Company feels that all the issues had been agreed in the
Company's "efficiencies document" except Nos. 1, 2 and some
aspects of 7 but this latter clause is not a problem. The union
confirmed this position.
9. Clause 5 on contract work was put forward by the Company
because the management did not want to have to go to the Union on
every occasion when contractors were required and when manning
levels were not at issue.
Clause 5 is as follows:
"5. Contract Work
Union agreement required to employment of contractors
on "Project Work".
"Project Work"
In general would be of a once-off nature, and which
adds to the assets of the company.
Project work would cover the following areas:-
- Work on creating new buildings, plant and equipment.
- Work on modifying buildings, plant and equipment where
such modifications are providing additional facilities,
increasing the assets or improving operational
performance.
- Work on replacing buildings, plant and equipment."
10. The Union agrees that clause 5 of the "efficiencies document"
was agreed and still forms part of the agreement with the Company.
11. Management intimated that it wished to employ contractors on
roofing work and firmed up the proposal in May, 1987.
12. The Industrial Relations Manager raised the question again at
a meeting in May 1987 with shop stewards. On Monday 6th July the
Industrial Relations Manager met the Union's Branch Secretary
concerning a number of issues and at that meeting the Industrial
Relations Manager indicated that the question of the contractors
had been discussed with shop stewards and that it would have to go
ahead. He said that special equipment was needed and gave other
reasons why the Company did not wish to have the work carried out
by its own employees. The Branch Secretary said he didn't agree
that it should go out to contract.
13. The Branch Secretary recollects that he discussed a number of
issues. The Industrial Relations Manager said that there was
special equipment necessary and that the Company didn't have the
special equipment. The section committee had said that they were
opposed to contractors in view of the fears of redundancy for the
temporary employees. He also asked for a meeting with the Chief
Executive. The predominant issue in the minds of the committee
was employment at the plant.
14. On 21st July the Personnel Manager said that there were no
implications in the contract for employment or earnings and that
it would have to go ahead. The Union asked if a contract had been
signed and were told that it had not.
15. The union asked for a meeting with the Chief Executive and
said that if it could gain a guarantee in relation to the
temporary employees it would help to allay the fears in relation
to the contractors. At the meeting on 21st July the Personnel
Manager informed the Union that, speaking on behalf of the Chief
Executive, the third shift would be there for the foreeeable
future.
16. This might have been acceptable to the Union if it had come
from the Chief Executive himself.
17. The Union felt that as no contract had been signed the
contractor would not be coming on site because on a previous
occasion contract work on the shearing of scrap had not been
implemented until agreement was reached.
18. The management maintains that it made it clear on 21st July
that the contractor would be coming in despite the union
objection.
19. Management agree however that there was no precedent for
using outside contractors in the face of unresolved union
opposition.
20. On the afternoon of Friday, 31st July the contractor started
work. This involved the sheeting of buildings - work formerly done
exclusively by the "height gang" -replacing or repairing as
necessary. There are 3 people working full time for the
contractor with a carpenter and a welder as required. Both
parties agreed at the hearing that this is "project work" within
the meaning of Clause 5.
21. One of the Shop Stewards was approached by some members. He
approached the Personnel Manager and asked for the matter to be
referred to a third party. The Personnel Manager said he did not
feel that the matter warranted reference to a third party. The
Branch Secretary advised the Shop Steward to ask for the removal
of the contractor and referral of the matter to a third party.
22. On Tuesday 4th August (after Bank holiday) the union
committee asked that the issue be referred to a third party and
that in the meantime the contractor be removed from the site. A
general meeting was held at which it was decided that an overtime
ban be imposed.
23. In response the Personnel Manager offered to operate clause
16 of the "efficiencies document". Clause 16 is an agreement on
dispute procedures which provides that in the event of a dispute
over the performance of work it would be carried out "in
accordance with Management's instructions pending resolution of
the dispute by the agreed procedure". The union did not consider
that this clause was relevant to the circumstances of the case and
so this proposal was not acceptable to it.
24. Subsequently management laid off over two hundred of the
workforce as the overtime ban seriously affected production.
25. A conciliation conference was held on Wednesday 12 August
1987 but agreement was not reached and both sides agreed to refer
the matter to the Court for investigation and recommendation under
section 67 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946.
26. The Court heard the case on 13 August at a hearing which
finished at 2.30 am on Friday 14 August.
27. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court issued a formal
request to both sides to allow it time to reflect on the evidence
submitted and asked the Company to remove the contractors from the
site and the union to return to normal work immediately pending
the issue of this recommendation. Both sides acceded to this
request.
RECOMMENDATION:
28. (i) The Court finds that prior to 1985 the union had
established, by custom and practice, the right to prior
consultation on the use of contractors and had come to
expect that contractors would not be introduced onto
the site unless agreement was reached.
(ii) However, the agreement of 1985 must be taken to replace
previous practice.
(iii) The Court believes that the dispute arose because the
parties had conflicting interpretations of the 1985
agreement, particularly clause 5 of the "efficiencies
document"
(iv) Reading clause 5 of the "efficiencies document" in the
context in which it was agreed it is clear that this
clause altered custom and practice regarding the use of
outside contractors and that the company was no longer
obliged to have the union's agreement before the
introduction of contractors on project work.
(v) The Court therefore finds that the union was not acting
in accordance with the existing agreements in taking
industrial action in the form of an overtime ban when
it objected to the use of the contractor on work which
both sides now agree was "project work".
(vi) The dispute could have been avoided if both sides had
discussed the issues at greater length prior to the
contractor's arrival on site and it appears to the
Court that the management did not emphasise clearly
enough to the union that it intended to go ahead with
its plans to use the contractor despite the union's
objection.
(vii) For these reasons the Court considers that it will help
the parties avoid similar disputes in the future if it
spells out the duties and responsibilities of the
parties under the present agreements on the use of
contractors
(viii)By virtue of clause 5 of the "efficiencies document"
the union has not the right to impede the use of
contractors on "project work". This means that where
project work is concerned the management should consult
with the unions in advance but if agreement is not
reached, management have the right to go ahead without
agreement and the union may take the matter through the
agreed procedure in clause 16.
(ix) On the other hand where the use of contractors has
implications for the manning levels in the plant, the
union should be consulted and agreement sought. If the
union does not agree, then the contractors should not
be brought on site and the provisions of the 1977
agreement continue to apply.
(x) In any event the union should be given all relevant
information on contracts, e.g. the work involved, size
of contract and duration.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
18th August, 1987 ---------------
U.M./U.S. Chairman