Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88636 Case Number: LCR12037 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIDARE TRANSFORMERS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Payment to three workers for five days when they were off the payroll.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the claimants did not adhere to the
requirements of the agreed Procedural Agreement during the period
of dispute.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88636 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12037
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIDARE TRANSFORMERS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Payment to three workers for five days when they were off the
payroll.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of transformers for
the generation, distribution and transmission of electricity. The
workers concerned in this dispute are coil winders. Their work
consists of winding copper wire onto coils or cones for assembly
into the transformers. A bonus system is in operation and payment
is based on performance (output).
3. In April, 1988 a disagreement arose in relation to the timing
of a particular operation performed by these workers. The workers
were unhappy with revised timing proposed by management and no
agreement was reached on the matter. In the meantime a Union
Committee was engaged in negotiations with the management
concerning major site restructuring and changes in work practices.
On 11th May, 1988 at a Union Committee meeting held on site, the
dispute concerning the coil winders was discussed. The Union
states that the three workers were instructed by Union personnel
to follow the provisions of the 1982 agreement, i.e. report for
work the following day and submit a grievance form, to request the
assistance of the site's Union work study advisor and to seek the
assistance of the chief shop steward if needed.
4. Management states that the men's performance from 9th to 11th
May varied between 36 and 75, far short of the normal 120 and that
this had the effect of "starving" component supply down the line.
It is stated that, following discussion on the issue, the three
workers were warned that if they did not either work at 80
performance on disputed work and normal performance on other work
or 80 performance on all work then they would be taken off the
payroll.
5. When the men reported for work on 12th May they handed in the
grievance form and requested the assistance of the site's work
study person and subsequently the chief shop steward. However,
access to these persons was denied by Management on the grounds
that the workers now worked in a different Company due to the fact
that Unidare had been divided into a number of associated
Companies on 1st May as part of the rationalisation plan. At 10am
Management took the three workers off the payroll. The
transformers workforce then stopped work in protest.
6. A Union official arrived on site that evening and the workers
not directly involved resumed work. A meeting was arranged at
which the three workers, a Union official, Management and the
chief shop steward were present. Management objected to the
presence of the chief shop steward on the grounds that he was an
employee of another Company on site and no discussion took place.
The men remained off the payroll for five days during which time
they reported for work each day. At the end of this period they
were restored to the payroll having agreed to resume normal
output. The question which gave rise to the dispute is still
under discussion. The Union then sought payment for the five
days. Management was not prepared to make such payment and the
matter was referred, on 22nd June, 1988, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on 21st July, 1988 and the matter was
referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took
place on 9th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7.1 The Union understood that although 30th April, 1988 was the
target date for the establishment of separate Companies on
site, the existing provisions of the 1982 Agreement were to
remain in force until Company/Union negotiations on
restructuring were completed. The Union has been committed
to early finalisation of agreement on restructuring but it
expected that the Company would honour the existing
Agreements in the interim. This has not been the case in the
current dispute.
7.2 When the original dispute developed, the Union and the
workers sought to resolve it by using the available
procedures. The Company did not adhere to procedures in not
allowing the workers access to either the work study advisor
or the chief shop steward, and by its refusal to allow the
chief shop steward to be present at the meeting on 12th May.
The Union believes that, had Management taken a different
approach in relation to these matters, the action of removing
the men from the payroll would not have arisen. In effect a
"lock-out" situation existed in relation to the three
workers, no provision for which exists in the disciplinary
procedure.
7.3 The Company alleges that the workers were in breach of their
contract of employment and of the procedure for resolving
disputes. The Union denies this and considers that the
workers were not in breach of any Agreement. The Union is
seeking payment to the workers for the five days, a sum of
#162 to one man and #168 to each of the other two.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8.1 Arising from the disputed time study the three workers
operated a "go slow". From 9th May to 11th May their
performance varied between 36 and 75 performance, well short
of the normal 120. Discussion on the matter proved
fruitless. The result was to "starve" component supply down
the line. On 10th May the workers were informed that if they
did not work at 80 performance at least they would be taken
off the payroll. Since they did not do so, they were taken
off the payroll on 12th May. Management contends that
disputed work must be done at 80 performance.
8.2 The workers' action was unreasonable, unofficial and contrary
to normal procedures. Management should not be required to
finance such unofficial industrial action. The Labour Court
has upheld this principle in previous such cases.
8.3 Management does not accept the argument that in the old
structure a "representative" would have been available to the
workers and that this would have resolved the situation. The
service of the Union's work study section should have been
sought, as provided for in the procedure.
8.4 Concession of the claim for payment could have repercussive
effects in relation to future disputes.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the claimants did not adhere to the
requirements of the agreed Procedural Agreement during the period
of dispute.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th September, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
AK/PG --------------------
Deputy Chairman