Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87870 Case Number: AD885 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LAPPLE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 256/87 concerning the implementation of a Company/Union agreement.
Recommendation:
5. It is very much apparent to the Court that the issue goes far
beyond the question of the non appointment of the claimants here
concerned to positions of responsibility.
From the submissions made it is evident that the problem arises
primarily as a result of a different approach by each of the
Unions to the issue of employees who have completed adult
apprenticeship service.
In this context the Court rejects the appeal and upholds the
Rights Commissioners recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87870 DECISION NO. AD588
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: LAPPLE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T.
256/87 concerning the implementation of a Company/Union agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. (1) The Company is engaged in the manufacture of machine
press tools, primarily for the motor trade. Since its inception
in 1974 a high degree of skill and reliability in its product has
been achieved.
(2) Originally, when the Company/Union agreement was negotiated
it provided for craftsmen to be recruited from either National
Engineering Electrical Trade Union (N.E.E.T.U.) or Irish Transport
and General Workers' Union (I.T.G.W.U.) sources. This arrangement
was provided for as it was accepted that workers with the required
skills may not be available in the immediate area.
(3) In 1976 following a Rights Commissioners investigation a new
agreement was negotiated and signed between the Company and
N.E.E.T.U. which gave that Union sole negotiating rights for
craftsmen.
(4) In order to remedy the situation of the shortage of
appropriate skills the Company, in conjunction with the Regional
Technical College Carlow, ran special courses for adult
apprentices who were selected from the semi-skilled workers in the
factory. The Company also entered into negotiations with the
Unions concerned with the intention that the selected workers
(I.T.G.W.U. members) would join NEETU at the completion of the
course. However N.E.E.T.U. withdrew from the agreement but the
Company decided to pursue the programme in action and continued
with the training courses.
(5) A total of 22 workers have successfully completed the adult
apprentice course. In March, 1987, the Company sought to recruit
4 assistant chargehands for the Toolroom (Bench area) of the
plant. All the workers who completed the adult apprentice course
applied for these positions but none were successful.
(6) The I.T.G.W.U. approached Management to find out why none of
these workers were not successful in securing promotion.
Management advised the Union that the only difficulty with their
applications was their membership of the I.T.G.W.U. and that the
only way the workers could get promotion was if they resigned from
that Union and joined N.E.E.T.U.
(7) This was not acceptable to the Union and the matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation.
(8) Following an investigation held on 30th September, 1987, the
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation dated 8th
October, 1987 -
"I am requested by the Union to investigate whether their
Adult Apprentice members, upon successful completion of their
training, are entitled under the Union/Company Agreement to
apply for and be selected as chargehands. Ignoring the
complex industrial relations problems surrounding this matter
one is entitled to answer that no barrier should be placed in
the way of any suitably qualified person who wishes to better
their station in life by promotion. Nor should any
unreasonable impediment be placed in the way of the company
in selecting the most suitable candidate for promotion. In
this case it would appear that the application of the normal
competitive criteria are subservient to the needs of
industrial peace when making promotions. The issues in this
case are far too complex for resolution in the context of a
2.50 hour investigation conducted without the aid of written
submissions from the parties. However, it is abundantly
clear that what we have here is an inter-union dispute as
much as a dispute between the ITGWU and Lapple concerning the
status of their definitive agreement with the Company. In
the circumstances I recommend that the assistance of the
Irish Congress of Trade Unions is essential to the peaceful
resolution of this dispute. I am confident that the Company
would accept a formula which would give it a wider choice in
which to exercise its prerogatives in the matter of
promotions.
I therefore recommend that the Union refers the matter to
I.C.T.U. under Section VII 42 of the Congress constitution.
I further recommend that such working arrangements as are
presently in operation in this area should continue without
prejudice for the time being. This will provide for further
examination of the issues in a conflict free atmosphere".
(9) The Union appealed the above recommendation to the Labour
Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal in Carlow on 14th December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The original House Agreement states that "N.E.E.T.U. and
I.T.G.W.U. shall negotiate jointly for their members who are
skilled". That agreement is still in force. The Company
attempted to bring in another agreement with this Union
after they had signed a separate Agreement with .N.E.E.T.U.
That agreement was never signed and is therefore not valid.
2. The Company say that N.E.E.T.U. has sole negotiating
rights for skilled workers. This Union refuses to accept
that such an agreement, taking away its rights to represent
skilled workers, could be reached without its consent.
3. The workers in question have completed the adult
apprentice course successfully which gives them recognition
for their skills and the same rates of pay as N.E.E.T.U.
craftsmen. They have the right to seek promotional
opportunities as they arise.
4. The workers have the required skills, and wish to be
represented by this Union which has the right to represent
them under the House Agreement. This Agreement also provides
that if either party to the Agreement wishes to change or
terminate any clause they must give notice of intent to do
so. The Company has never advised the Union of its intention
to change the clause in dispute and if signed agreements mean
anything they must be honoured.
5. The Rights Commissioners recommendation does not address
the issue. Referring the matter to ICTU would serve no
useful purpose as it is a dispute between the Company and the
Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The problem considered by the Rights Commissioner relates
to the ineligibility of those workers who completed an adult
apprentice course to be considered for advertised positions
as chargehand in the Company. Tradition setting out the
ground rules was formed many years before Lapple came to
Ireland and the roots go very deep. As yet it is not
accepted in trade union circles that a non-craft manual
employee can give direction to craftsmen. In Germany such a
philosophy is unheard of; their belief is that ability
should be the governing factor. However Management
recognises the Irish tradition and has accepted it.
2. The ITGWU has argued that it still retains the right to
organise craftsmen even though the management has withdrawn
from the original agreement, signed a separate agreement with
NEETU for craft workers, and offered a separate agreement to
the ITGWU on behalf of semi-skilled and unskilled workers.
3. As late as September, 1987, the NEETU has indicated that
the question of sole negotiating rights is not open to
negotiation.
4. As the Rights Commissioner has said, this issue is very
much an inter-union dispute and correctly, in the Company's
view has suggested that the Disputes Committee of Congress
examine the claims of both unions.
5. Alternatively, the Company considers that NEETU should
state that it will accept these adult apprentices into
membership and the ITGWU should agree to this by way of
resolving the problem. This suggestion is not new but it
should be remembered that it was the agreed approach of both
unions, together with management, when the negotiations took
place when the training of apprentices was first proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is very much apparent to the Court that the issue goes far
beyond the question of the non appointment of the claimants here
concerned to positions of responsibility.
From the submissions made it is evident that the problem arises
primarily as a result of a different approach by each of the
Unions to the issue of employees who have completed adult
apprenticeship service.
In this context the Court rejects the appeal and upholds the
Rights Commissioners recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th January, 1988 Evelyn Owens
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman