Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89227 Case Number: LCR12438 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ABBOTT (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for compensation in respect of fire fighting duties for 20 process operators.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court notes that the fire fighting duties in respect of which
payment is being sought are now no longer required of the
claimants. The Court recommends, in the light of all the
circumstances of this case that the claimants be paid a lump sum
of #250 each in respect of this claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89227 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12438
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ABBOTT (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation in respect of fire fighting duties for
20 process operators.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures dried milk products at Cootehill and
employs 110 people. The manufacturing process is a fire risk
because of the nature of the product and in 1983 the Company set
up fire fighting teams to provide twenty four hour cover at the
plant. The twenty process operators were trained in fire fighting
techniques on an overtime basis for approximately two hours per
week before normal shift commenced. The Union regarded the
arrangement as a voluntary one while the Company considered that
it was part of the process workers' duties. In November, 1986 an
agreement was signed between the Company and the Union which
provided for payment of #70 at Christmas, and that members
involved in fighting any outbreak of fire would receive #180 each.
This agreement covered the period November, 1985 to June, 1987.
In June, 1987 as part of a comprehensive agreement provision was
made for the payment of #100 at Christmas of each year to the
process workers in respect of fire fighting duties. The agreement
was endorsed by a majority of the workforce and contained a clause
that there would be no further cost increasing claims. The
process operators however were not satisfied with the level of
payment and submitted a claim for #250 per annum plus #100 per
fire. The Union stated that if their claim was not conceded, fire
fighting duties would be withdrawn. Local discussions failed to
resolve the issue and the dispute was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 17th November, 1987.
Conciliation conferences were held in March and May, 1988, but no
agreement was reached. The Union then indicated that it was
withdrawing from the fire fighting service and the Company
accepted this statement and arranged to have a sprinkler system
introduced at the plant. Further local discussions and another
conciliation conference was held in March, 1989 but no agreement
was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 22nd March, 1989. A Court
hearing was held on the 24th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Company undertook the fire training programme
there were no discussions or agreement with the Union at that
time as the twenty process operators underwent training on an
individual basis. The training extended to include external
expert assistance in the use of breathing apparatus. The
commitment of the workers was highlighted when a major fire
occurred in November, 1985. Prompt action by the workers
succeeded in containing the fire until the fire brigade
arrived. All they received from the Company was a verbal
acknowledgement that they had done a good job.
2. The Union negotiated an interim agreement with the Company
for payment of an annual fire fighting allowance to the
process workers but the understanding was that full
consideration would be given to the claim proper when
negotiations resumed in June, 1987. The Company at this time
however proceeded to include in their final offer (on a
comprehensive agreement voted on and accepted by the entire
workforce) payment of #100 gross per annum. The workers
concerned voted against the proposals but they were accepted
by the workforce and became part of a three year agreement
which expires in June, 1990.
3. The workers became so frustrated with the Company's
attitude that they decided to refuse to train as voluntary
fire fighters however they were persuaded to provide cover
while ongoing discussions took place. The Union has tried
every avenue to find a way out of the impasse but the Company
has refused to concede any realistic payment since the
introduction of the sprinkler system at the plant.
4. The Union considers that the workers concerned have never
been properly compensated for fire fighting duties. The
Unions valuation is #250 nett per annum retrospective from
May, 1988 to 1985. This sum is based on the fact that another
U.S. based company, pays this amount to their fire fighting
team without ever discussing the matter with the Union.
5. The Company cannot dispute the value of the service
rendered by the workers from the point of view of savings on
insurance costs. The Company stated at one stage that the
fire fighting service was crucial and the Company could not
operate without it. Their contribution in preventing a major
fire in 1985 was incalculable and they took risks far beyond
the terms of their jobs as process operators.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During negotiations to finalise the 26th round wage
agreement the Company offered to make an annual payment of
#100 gross to each member of the fire fighting team. This
offer formed part of an overall package in full and final
settlement of all claims. It was accepted by the employees
and the agreement was signed by both Company and Unions. The
Company has honoured its commitments made in the agreement.
Subsequently the workers informed the Company that they would
refuse to participate in further training or fire fighting
duties unless the payments made to them were increased. The
workers were then informed by Management that they were in
breach of the joint company union agreement.
2. Management however agreed to attend various conciliation
conferences in an effort to resolve the issue but these were
not successful. In March, 1989, the process operators decided
to discontinue with the fire fighting service with effect from
15th April, 1988. This was in total breach of the joint
agreement and an institution of unofficial industrial action.
Following further discussions the workers agreed to provide
the fire fighting service, however despite various meetings
subsequently no agreement could be reached and the Union
informed the Company of its decision to withdraw from fire
fighting duties from 30th May, 1988.
3. The Company after lengthy deliberations accepted the
process workers decision and confirmed this with the Union in
June, 1988. This issue of retrospection for the period
1985-1987 does not arise. The Company has honoured all its
agreements on fire fighting during this period and made all
the appropriate payments to the process workers for fire
fighting as proposed in these agreements. Any retrospective
payments now would have repercussive effects on other groups
of workers in the plant. The Company was also willing to
accept the settlement proposals which emerged from the
conciliation conferences (details supplied to the Court). The
Union however rejected them.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court notes that the fire fighting duties in respect of which
payment is being sought are now no longer required of the
claimants. The Court recommends, in the light of all the
circumstances of this case that the claimants be paid a lump sum
of #250 each in respect of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________________
P.P. Nicholas Fitzgerald
12th June, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.