Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88420 Case Number: LCR12051 Section / Act: S67 Parties: B. MCDONNELL LIMITED - and - NATIONAL UNION OF SHEET METAL WORKERS OF IRELAND |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of the 1977 Company/Union Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has examined the 1977 Agreement which it has been
asked to interpret in the light of subsequent developments. The
Agreement itself does not make clear the intention of the parties.
What is clear is that the Agreement maintained a distinction
between the skilled and semi-skilled elements in the workforce,
whilst extending the range of semi-skilled work. In the
circumstances it seems unlikely that the protection offered to the
skilled workers in the Agreement was intended to be extended
beyond the then existing skilled workforce. Thus by implication
the Employer's interpretation is correct. The Court therefore,
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88420 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12051
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: B. MCDONNELL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
NATIONAL UNION OF SHEET METAL WORKERS OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of the 1977
Company/Union Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs skilled sheet metal workers, who are
members of the Union (NUSMWI) and semi-skilled workers, members of
the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, (ITGWU). The
semi-skilled were first recruited in 1977, at which time a
Company/Union agreement permitted semi skilled and/or unskilled
workers to carry out duties under the supervision of a sheet metal
worker in the production of reptition sheet metal work. The
parties also had a verbal agreement that no skilled worker would
be made redundant prior to the semi-skilled workers. The Company
interprets this to mean that none of the skilled people employed
prior to the date of the Agreement, (November, 1977), would lose
their jobs before the semi-skilled, but those recruited after that
date could be made redundant by the Company before the
semi-skilled. The Union's interpretation, of the Agreement is
that only when all semi-skilled workers have been made redundant
can a skilled worker be let go. As the parties could not agree at
local level the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 27th January, 1988. A conciliation conference
was held on 8th April, 1988. The ITGWU attended this conference
as observers. The conference was adjourned to give the unions an
opportunity to find a compromise solution. At a resumed
conference on 23rd May, 1988, the unions proposed that strict
seniority should apply and that both classes of worker might be
made redundant depending on their place on the seniority list.
This solution was unacceptable to the Company, who felt that the
weight of seniority was on the side of the skilled workers and
therefore, the position would not be substantially changed from
the NUSMWI's stated interpretation of the 1977 Agreement. As no
settlement was achieved the matter was referred to the Labour
Court, on 3rd June, 1988, for investigation and recommendation. A
Court hearing took place on 15th August, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Sheet metal workers and semi-skilled workers are two
wholly distinct groups of workers. They are in different
grades and in receipt of a different wage. When a worker in
any category is to be made redundant, the 'last in, first out'
basis will be used. This method is stated in the contract of
employment and the Company will adhere to it. Thus if the
Company has a need for less semi-skilled or sheet metal
workers, then it will honour the seniority of both categories.
2. The 1977 Agreement principally allowed semi-skilled
workers to carry out quantitative, repetitive work under the
supervision of a sheet metal worker. This move towards the
greater utilisation of semi-skilled as against skilled labour
will continue.
3. The Company categorically states that the verbal reference
pertaining to a protection of sheet metal workers in the event
of lay-off or redundancy only applies to sheet metal workers
employed in the Company in November, 1977. No company can
afford to build in guarantees for any group of employees in
such an unpredictable and fluctuating market. The Company has
had to react to market circumstances which increasingly
demands process work done by semi-skilled workers. Any
binding agreement to keep on expensive and highly skilled
labour can only serve to restrict the Company's ability to
compete in the market place.
4. The Company is operating in an area of the market that is
changing dramatically in terms of innovation, processes and
technology. To remain viable the Company must be free to
react to market circumstances as they arise. For example, the
Company must interchange labour according to business demand
being operated on its mechanical or electrical side.
5. The Union is fully aware of the financial circumstances of
the Company, which is currently in a loss making situation.
No pay increases could be granted this year. Under the
circumstances the Company cannot adopt the Union
interpretation of the 1977 Agreement nor their subsequent
proposal.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1977 Agreement contained major concessions by the
Union with regard to long standing work practices. At the
time the Company was pleased to obtain these concessions and
told the Union so. The Union had to have some assurance that,
the future employment of sheet metal workers was not
jeopardised by the Agreement (i.e. allow some of the less
skilful elements of the trade to be carried out by other
grades), hence the inclusion of the clause which the Company
now disputes.
2. At no stage during the course of this dispute has there
been any conflict between the Union and the ITGWU. Indeed the
two unions presented a joint proposal to the Company at a
resumed conciliation conference on 23rd May, 1988, i.e. that
in any redundancy situation overall service would count. This
was rejected by the Company.
3. It appears to the Union that what the Company really wants
is the elimination of the seniority procedure that is agreed
with all unions and be permitted to 'hire and fire' as it
suits them.
4. The Company can have no complaints about the amount of
co-operation received from all the unions involved. The
unions have never failed to meet with the Company and discuss
any problems that arise. More often than not, the unions have
helped the Company as far as possible.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has examined the 1977 Agreement which it has been
asked to interpret in the light of subsequent developments. The
Agreement itself does not make clear the intention of the parties.
What is clear is that the Agreement maintained a distinction
between the skilled and semi-skilled elements in the workforce,
whilst extending the range of semi-skilled work. In the
circumstances it seems unlikely that the protection offered to the
skilled workers in the Agreement was intended to be extended
beyond the then existing skilled workforce. Thus by implication
the Employer's interpretation is correct. The Court therefore,
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
29th September, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N/J.C.