Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88313 Case Number: LCR12126 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ECCO LTD - and - CRAFT UNION GROUP (AEU, ETU, NEETU |
Claim by the Unions in respect of eight workers that there was a Company/Union Agreement stipulating a guaranteed amount of overtime for workers, when contractors were on site.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that it has not been established that either
verbal or written agreements existed in the Company providing for
set amounts of overtime relating directly to the presence of
sub-contractors on site.
In the absence of any such agreement and having regard to the fact
that no evidence was produced to the Court that overtime working
was unreasonably restricted in periods when sub-contractors were
on site, the Court recommends that the Unions accept the Company's
proposals as being reasonable.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88313 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12126
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ECCO LTD
and
CRAFT UNION GROUP (AEU, ETU, NEETU)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions in respect of eight workers that there was
a Company/Union Agreement stipulating a guaranteed amount of
overtime for workers, when contractors were on site.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company on occasions has reason to employ outside
contractors to undertake specific installations. The Union is
aware of, and in agreement with this procedure. However, the
Union contends that there is an agreement in existence, which
provides that, when contractors are brought on site, workers will
be guaranteed overtime in the amount of four hours per night
Monday to Friday, plus eight hours on Saturday. The Company
argues that there is no agreement on the use of sub-contractors
and that, while the issue was discussed on various occasions,
nothing was finalised. As no agreement could be reached in
protracted local discussions, the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 15th February,
1988. A conciliation conference was held on the 12th April, 1988,
but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 25th
April, 1988. A Labour Court hearing took place in Dundalk on the
26th October, 1988 - the earliest date suitable to all parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3.1 During the period 1978 to 1982 many attempts were made to
re-draft the Company/Union Agreement. This proved most
difficult and indeed has never been absolutely finalised, but
it has been the Union's policy that existing agreements would
continue to operate until such times as they were replaced by
new ones.
3.2 Various documents (copies supplied to the Court) show that
there is a verbal agreement between the Company and the Union
on this issue. Briefly the details of these documents are as
follows:
(i) a Company letter of 20th March, 1980, with a proposed
agreement attached stated that its definition of
'fully deployed' was when 10% (group average) overtime
had been made available within the relevant group.
(ii) section 3, Clause a of the proposed agreement, was an
endeavour to clarify the position in relation to the
use of outside resources. This quite clearly shows
that there had been some form of agreement in the past
and the Company was endeavouring to have this written
down more explicitly, and therefore placed a value of
10% group average overtime as the position, when they
would use outside contractors. This, by its very
nature, would infer that there was in existence some
form of agreement.
(iii) a memorandum dated 13th June, 1980, signed by an
official of the Company, changed the definition to 20%
following discussions with the Union.
(iv) an agreement dated 26th November, 1982, signed by a
Company supervisor, states that "when the Company is
getting tables made it is the intention that plant
maintenance will first be contacted to carry out the
work however if they are working reasonable overtime
the work will be sent to outside vendors". This also
substantiates the fact that, when contractors were
brought on site, Union members were entitled to a
level of overtime which would be in accordance with
the level worked by the contractors.
3.3 The Unions maintain that members had a verbal agreement
whereby they worked four hours each night, Monday to Friday and
eight hours on Saturday when contractors were on site. The
evidence put forward, in support of the claim, shows that there
was an agreement in operation, and there is no reason to suppose
that the verbal agreement, as put forward by shop stewards, is not
the agreement that was in operation at that time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company and the Union do not have a written agreement on
the use of sub-contractors, who are brought into the plant
from time to time to undertake maintenance contracts. The
Company has invested £17 million in capital refurbishment,
all of which was carried out by sub-contractors. While the
question of a written agreement was discussed on various
occasions, the matter was not finalised. The Company rarely
used sub-contractors in 1987 and when it consulted the
Unions, early in 1988, regarding proposed projects involving
sub- contractors, they protested and would not agree to
contractors coming on site to do these jobs. No overtime was
worked in the plant since August 1987 due to a lack of orders
and cost problems.
4.2 Since January, 1988, the current business situation is a
healthy one. The Company has hired 70 temporary production
workers and 3 temporary mechanics, and business has improved.
The Company has held a number of meetings with both the
internal and external representatives on the issue of a
Company/Union Agreement, attended a conciliation conference,
and have failed to reach agreement. The Unions' case is
based on an exchange of documents in 1980/1982 (details
supplied to the Court) and the belief that precedent had been
established over a number of years. The Company's position
is that the nub of this issue is the definition of 'fully
deployed' as set out in the correspondence of 1980, and
contends that its position of stating that this means 20%
group average overtime is a reasonable position. The Company
also contends that the Union position of forcing the Company
to 'guarantee' four hours overtime per day plus weekend
overtime is totally unreasonable and is one never accepted by
the management of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that it has not been established that either
verbal or written agreements existed in the Company providing for
set amounts of overtime relating directly to the presence of
sub-contractors on site.
In the absence of any such agreement and having regard to the fact
that no evidence was produced to the Court that overtime working
was unreasonably restricted in periods when sub-contractors were
on site, the Court recommends that the Unions accept the Company's
proposals as being reasonable.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
18th November, 1988 -------------------
TO'D/PG Deputy Chairman