Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87946 Case Number: LCR11835 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SIUICRE EIREANN CPT - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION;ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 100 temporary craftsmen for: (a) recognition for service and a salary scale; (b) that temporary craftmen's holiday pay be calculated on the same basis as regular craftsmen.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the conclusion that the nature of employment of
temporary craftsmen differs from that of the employment of
seasonal workers insofar as the seasonal work is regular and
foreseeable, whilst the craft work relates to specific non regular
projects. The Court therefore does not consider that the Unions'
claims for a right of call-back or credit for periods of previous
service to qualify for movement on the regular craft incremental
scale is sustainable and does not therefore recommend concession
of these claims.
8. Insofar as the claim for holidays is concerned, since no
temporary worker of any grade qualifies for such holidays, the
Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87946 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11835
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SIUICRE EIREANN CPT
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 100 temporary
craftsmen for:
(a) recognition for service and a salary scale;
(b) that temporary craftmen's holiday pay be calculated on
the same basis as regular craftsmen.
BACKGROUND:
2. Each year the Company employs varying numbers of temporary
craftsmen, many of whom are called back yearly. These employees
are paid on the bottom point of the craftsmen scale and cannot at
any time progress up the scale. The Unions on 6th November, 1986,
claimed that the temporary craftsmen should accumulate service on
an agreed basis and be paid on the scale in accordance with such
accumulated service. The Unions also claimed that the temporary
craftsmen, who accumulate holidays against the 15 days per annum
provided for in the Holiday (Employees) Act, 1973, should
accumulate holidays against the 20 days per annum provided by
agreement to other groups in the Company. The Company rejected
the claim on the basis that temporary staff are not entitled to
the same level of benefits as full-time staff and did not accept
that they should be so entitled. As agreement could not be
reached locally, the matter was referred on 11th March, 1987, to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No settlement was
achieved at a conciliation conference held on 9th June, 1987, and
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 10th December,
1987, for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on 18th February, 1988.
CLAIM A
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the last five years the Company has substantially
reduced its compliment of permanent craftsmen while increasing
the number of temporary craftsmen (details provided to the
Court).
3. 2. The Company recognises the service of temporary general
operatives on the basis of four campaigns, each lasting three
to four months, is equal to one years service. The Unions
believe that the temporary craftsmen should accumulate service
on the same basis.
3. Irrespective of the number of years a temporary craftsman
is called back he always remains at the bottom of the
incremental scale. With the constantly increasing number of
temporary craftsmen the Company is effectively operating an
insidious policy aimed at not only containing the craft rates
of pay but actually reducing them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The permanent craftsmen have a specific and quite definite
relationship with the Company resulting in a preferential
salary scale and conditions of employment in recognition of
their years of permanent service. Temporary craftsmen have no
such relationship and accordingly their terms are different.
To change these terms could give rise to repercussive
additional claims. Temporary general operatives who return
each year do not qualify for service pay.
2. Temporary craftsmen, who have been with the Company on
previous campaigns, are under no obligation to hold themselves
available for work. They are also under no obligation to take
up a job offer or to remain for the length of a campaign.
3. The temporary craftsmen are recruited as needed from any
source. No special skills or experience are required over or
above those expected from craftsmen generally.
4. The Company has a weak financial position allied to a weak
competitive position in the sugar industry and is therefore in
no position to meet any cost increasing claims.
CLAIM B
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Unlike many other companies who employ temporary workers
on a continuous basis, the Company's temporary craftsmen do
not receive the same annual leave entitlements as the
permanent craftsmen, who enjoy twenty days per annum. The
temporary craftsmen are awarded annual leave based on the
strictest interpretation of the Holiday (Employees) Act, 1973,
and receive holidays calculated on fifteen days per annum.
2. The rates of pay for craftsmen in the Company have for a
number of years been determined on a comparability basis with
eight other companies. Of these companies, the ones that
regularly employ temporary workers provide the same holiday
entitlements for temporary and permanent workers. Other food
processing companies who use sugar as a major ingredient grant
annual leave to temporary workers on the same basis as
permanent workers. There is no justification in the Company
treating its own temporary craftsmen in such an inequitable
fashion and temporary craftsmen's holiday pay entitlement
should be calculated on the same basis as the permanent
craftmen's.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Unions have made reference to temporary general
operatives who return each year to the beet campaign and how
their arrangements differ from those of temporary craftsmen.
There is no direct comparison between the two very different
situations. The Company further maintains that the temporary
general operatives do not qualify for the holiday or service
pay accorded to permanent general operatives.
2. Permanent craftsmen, arising from their permanency and
quite specific relationship with the Company, have been
accorded five days extra holidays in recognition of their
years of service. Temporary craftsmen, because they have no
such permanent relationship or ties to the Company cannot
claim entitlement to any part of the preferential terms
awarded specifically to permanent craftsmen.
3. Temporary general operatives have a formal understanding
with the Company about returning each year and remaining for
the full duration of the campaign, the temporary craftsmen
have no such arrangements and therefore have no basis for
claiming any comparison.
4. Any change in the existing arrangements would generate
expensive repercussive claims and disturb long established
relationships in the Company. Due to a weak competitive and
financial position the Company is in no position to meet any
cost increasing claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the conclusion that the nature of employment of
temporary craftsmen differs from that of the employment of
seasonal workers insofar as the seasonal work is regular and
foreseeable, whilst the craft work relates to specific non regular
projects. The Court therefore does not consider that the Unions'
claims for a right of call-back or credit for periods of previous
service to qualify for movement on the regular craft incremental
scale is sustainable and does not therefore recommend concession
of these claims.
8. Insofar as the claim for holidays is concerned, since no
temporary worker of any grade qualifies for such holidays, the
Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
28th April, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.