Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87641 Case Number: LCR11651 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS (EUROPE)LIMITED - and - ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Dispute concerning the comprehensive agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that the refusal of the Craft Unions' members
to complete the stores requisition forms is a clear breach of the
terms of the comprehensive agreement and recommends that they now
desist from this form of industrial action.
6. However, it is clear to the Court that considerable
dissatisfaction has arisen amongst the members of the Craft Unions
as a result of the difference between their pay settlement and the
settlement made with the ITGWU. In order to conclude the matter
the Court recommends that, provided the Craft Unions agree to the
implementation of their agreement with full co-operation, a
payment equivalent to the retrospection paid to ITGWU members be
made.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87641 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11651
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS (EUROPE)LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the comprehensive agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are two comprehensive agreements covering the workforce,
one negotiated with the Craft Unions and the other with the Irish
Transport and General Workers' Union (ITGWU). The Craft Unions'
agreement was negotiated before and separate from the ITGWU
agreement. Because of the separate negotiations there are some
differences between the two agreements. The Craft Unions are
concerned that the ITGWU agreement is more favourable than their
agreement and their members have refused to co-operate with a
request from the Company that the craftsmen fill in a stores
requisition form which is at present filled out by a supervisor.
As no agreement could be reached at local level talks, the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
basis for a settlement was reached at a conciliation conference
held on 15th July, 1987 and the Company requested that the matter
be referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation as provided for in the agreement. The Unions
agreed to this request. A Court investigation into the dispute
was held in Letterkenny on 10th December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company, in concluding an agreement similar to the
craft agreement with another group of workers, treated them
more favourably than the craft workers. This is contrary to
normal practice and is especially unacceptable in the context
of long term agreements such as these. The Unions therefore
maintain that the Company has acted in bad faith.
2. The Craft Unions undertook long and intensive
negotiations to conclude the comprehensive agreement. When
they discovered that this agreement had been used as a basis
for negotiation with the general workers which led to
concession of better terms for those workers, the matter was
raised with the Company which refused to rectify the
imbalance.
3. 3. During previous wage round negotiations, agreements were
generally concluded with the general workers before settling
with the craft workers. Those agreements always stipulated
that if better terms were negotiated by the craft workers that
the general workers had the right to renegotiate their terms.
The Craft Unions reserved this same right during negotiations
on the craft agreement. There has never been any difference
between the groups of workers in the level of increase
received in previous wage round agreements.
4. The craft workers are withdrawing their co-operation
with the Company until this breach of faith has been
rectified.
5. The Unions are not disputing the interpretation of the
agreement. They are seeking a payment to the craftsmen of a
proportionately similar amount to that received by the general
workers in respect of six weeks retrospection.
6. The training outlined in the agreement will be of great
benefit to the Company. In fact the craftsmen have given a
lot in return for the agreed increases.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The craft workers are in breach of the Company/Union
agreement in seeking additional monies for the completion of
documentation as requested by the Company (details supplied to
the Court).
2. Concession of this claim would have serious and
detrimental consequences for the comprehensive agreement of
both groups of workers.
3. The Company acted in good faith in the negotiation of
these agreements. Originally it sought the joint conclusion
of negotiations but this proved impossible. The Company
agreed to the payment of retrospection in the case of the
general workers in order to settle the agreement.
4. The cost to the Company of implementing the craft
agreement is greater in relative terms than the general
agreement due to the training elements involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that the refusal of the Craft Unions' members
to complete the stores requisition forms is a clear breach of the
terms of the comprehensive agreement and recommends that they now
desist from this form of industrial action.
6. However, it is clear to the Court that considerable
dissatisfaction has arisen amongst the members of the Craft Unions
as a result of the difference between their pay settlement and the
settlement made with the ITGWU. In order to conclude the matter
the Court recommends that, provided the Craft Unions agree to the
implementation of their agreement with full co-operation, a
payment equivalent to the retrospection paid to ITGWU members be
made.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
20th January, 1988 -----------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman