Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87155 Case Number: LCR11201 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WM. CONNOLLY & SONS LTD - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the use by the Company of outside contractors.
Recommendation:
7. The Court recommends that when practicable the Union's claim
as set out in its submission to the Court and as reproduced in the
Appendix to this recommendation be accepted.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87155 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11201
CC861682 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11201
Parties: WILLIAM CONNOLLY & SONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the use by the Company of outside
contractors.
Background:
2. The Company, which manufactures high quality animal food
stuffs, employs approximately one hundred workers in Goresbridge,
Co Kilkenny. Sixty seven of the Company's workers are members of
the Union. The Company started using outside contractors about
three years ago. The Union disapproved of this practice and made
representations to the Company.
3. The parties had negotiations on the matter for almost two
years but no settlement was reached. The most recent such
negotiations were in conjunction with negotiations concerning a
comprehensive procedural agreement which are still going on. The
Union is claiming that the Company should have meaningful
negotiations before introducing outside contractors. An extract
from the Union's submission detailing the basis of its claim and
outlining proposals for settlement is in the appendix to this
Recommendation. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that
it was impractical.
4. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 9th
October, 1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. Further local negotiations took place before
a conciliation conference was held on 26th February, 1987.
However the parties did not reach a settlement and the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 14th April, 1987 in Kilkenny.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The Union recognises that many of the outside
contractors are doing work of a technical nature which
would be beyond the skill and competence of the workers.
However, at least some of the work which the outside
contractors do could be done by the workers.
(ii) The workers consider that the Company has a policy of
extending the amount of work done by outside
contractors.
(iii) Steel fabrication work that had been done by the workers
was contracted out. While some of the Company's
maintenance staff were assigned other duties workers
employed by outside contractors performed their jobs.
(iv) Up to about four years ago the Company employed one full
time worker to repair pallets. The Company then decided
it would be more economic to buy new pallets instead of
carrying out repairs when they got damaged.
Consequently the worker who repaired the pallets was
made redundant. Over a year ago the Company went back
to repairing pallets in the plant, however the work is
now being done by a contractor.
(v) The workers employed by the Company have the right to
seek to influence Company policy in this area which so
fundamentally affects them. The Union has been seeking
an agreement using something like the following wording:
"It is agreed that from time to time it may be
necessary to employ outside contractors. In such
event there shall be prior consultation with union
representatives before such contractor is engaged".
By prior consultation the Union has in mind an informal
in-house contact between the Management and Union
representatives. The Company would have their workers'
views before making any firm decision to introduce a
contractor. This arrangement, however, in no way
infringes the Company's right to make the final
decision. A system of prior consultation would be in
the interests of good industrial relations.
(vi) The workers are not satisfied that their interest would
be served by having recourse to the grievance procedure.
The first the workers know of other outside contractors
is their appearance on the site at which stage
contractual obligations have been entered into and the
Union's representations can have little practical
effect.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The use of outside contractors is a normal feature of
the Company's operation.
(b) The Company rejects the Union's contention that the use
of outside contractors is operating to the detriment of
the Union's members. The Company's proposal to insert
an appropriate clause in the draft Company/Union
agreement which would establish a monitoring channel was
a reasonable method to settle the matter.
(c) No employer in the area has an agreement as sought by
the Union.
(d) In each case where an outside contractor is used by the
Company there is a rational economic justification for
their use whether it is because of warranty requirements
or of economic viability.
(e) The issue here is the Company's right to conduct its
business in the most economic manner possible. The
Company recognises the Union's right to represent its
members but this does not extend to a right to determine
how the business should be run.
Recommendation:
7. The Court recommends that when practicable the Union's claim
as set out in its submission to the Court and as reproduced in the
Appendix to this recommendation be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
21st May, 1987 ----------------
TO'M/PG Chairman