Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88692 Case Number: LCR12099 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROADSTONE DUBLIN LIMITED - and - ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION |
Alleged breach of agreement by the Company in relation to one electrician.
Recommendation:
8. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the Agreement of October, 1985 is
still extant. However, it is clear that its operation is now no
longer necessary. In the circumstances the Court recommends that
the Company and the Union negotiate terms on which the Agreement
should be terminated.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88692 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12099
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROADSTONE DUBLIN LIMITED
and
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged breach of agreement by the Company in relation to one
electrician.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1985 the Company installed new block making equipment at
its plant in Belgard. Negotiations took place between the Union
and the Company concerning changed working conditions for three
craft employees. On 25th October, 1985 an agreement was reached
which stated, inter alia:-
"It is agreed to process the claims in respect of the three
craft personnel involved in block production at Belgard.
The Company will pay a responsibility payment of fifty pence
per hour on the basic craftsman's rate from the 24th
October, 1985. The payment will be without prejudice to the
Company's position."
3. The Union contends that this was an interim agreement only,
pending processing of the matter through the Labour Court. The
matter was not processed further.
4. The Company contends that the fifty pence payment was made on
the grounds that no supervisor would be appointed and that the
three workers concerned would take full responsibility for
production and maintenance on the shifts. However, in February,
1986, the Company appointed two shift supervisors who took
responsibility for the shifts.
5. Only one of the three workers has remained in the same
position and he is therefore the only worker to now receive the
fifty pence payment. The payment was never applied to the basic
rate and therefore did not increase in line with wage agreements
etc. It was applied as a bonus or allowance. The worker and the
Union sought a meeting to discuss application of the payment to
the basic rate. A meeting took place on 15th March, 1988. The
Company stated that it was its intention to withdraw the payment
since supervisors had taken on responsibility for production. The
matter was referred on 30th May, 1988, to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on 22nd
August, 1988, failed to resolve the matter and it was referred to
a full Court hearing. The hearing took place on 14th October,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In 1985, when the new equipment was installed, the
Company sought to increase and change the duties of the three
workers then involved and also introduce total flexibility.
The agreement signed on 25th October, 1985, was an interim
agreement which allowed the use of the new machines to
commence. It did not state that the craftsmen were to have
overall responsibility for production at the plant. Since
1985, the workers concerned, of whom only one now remains,
have adhered strictly to the agreement, giving total
flexibility. The Company, however, has not adhered to the
agreement since the fifty pence was paid as a bonus and was
not made part of the basic rate. The claimant's loss, on this
basis, since 1985, is now a cumulative figure of 16%. The
worker and the Union sought on a number of occasions to
discuss this matter with the Company but encountered
considerable difficulty in arranging a meeting.
2. When the Company eventually met with the Union in March,
1988 management raised the matter of supervisors having been
appointed a short time after the 1985 Agreement was signed,
and contended therefore that the fifty pence payment was
unwarranted on the basis that the craftsmen did not carry
overall responsibility for the plant. The Union rejects this
contention. Withdrawal of the payment would constitute a loss
of #34 per week to the worker concerned.
3. The Union is seeking adherence to the 1985 Agreement by
the Company and that the loss to the worker be made good.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The payment of fifty pence per hour was made for
additional responsibility. The craft personnel on shift were
to take responsibility for production and maintenance on
shift. That arrangement did not work and was discontinued.
The Company was obliged to appoint two Shift Supervisors in
February 1986 and that is still the position.
2. In its letters to the Union the Company set out in
detail the work practices and flexibility required. There
could be no misunderstanding of the Company's position and its
requirements in this regard.
3. The Company cannot continue to pay the worker fifty
pence per hour. It has been more than generous in continuing
to make this payment for as long as it has and until all the
procedures have been exhausted. The worker has been advised
on a number of occasions that the payment would be
discontinued.
4. The Company considers that the agreement of the 25th
October, 1985 no longer applies and believes that it is
entitled to withdraw the payment from the worker without
compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the Agreement of October, 1985 is
still extant. However, it is clear that its operation is now no
longer necessary. In the circumstances the Court recommends that
the Company and the Union negotiate terms on which the Agreement
should be terminated.
~
Signed on behalf of the labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
--------------------
28th October, 1988.
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman