Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89639 Case Number: LCR12633 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED - and - ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION |
Dispute concerning the use of contractors.
Recommendation:
8. On the basis of the information provided and the arguments
made at the hearing the Court is not satisfied that the work
involved on the site to-date is such as to warrant the
introduction of outside contractors under the terms of the 1977
Agreement. The Court therefore recommends that the site services
work continue to be done by the maintenance staff until such time
as it becomes clear that the terms of the Agreement are clearly
applicable.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89639 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12633
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED
and
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the use of contractors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures seawater magnesia at its factory on
the Boyne Road, Drogheda. Its entire product is exported. A
total of 260 people are employed by the Company at its Factory and
the associated Limestone Quarry near Donore.
3. Earlier this year the Company embarked on a #9m. Project that
entails replacing an existing Rotary Kiln with two shaft Kilns
which will be more efficient and produce a higher quality product.
4. The Union has agreed that all major work on the contract be
carried out by contractors but insists that installation work on
temporary site offices and its maintenance should be done by
Company employees.
5. On 15th May, 1989 an electrical sub-contractor engaged by the
Company to install the electrical services arrived on site. The
Union objected and the contractor was removed from the site. No
agreement was reached at meetings held at local level and the
dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 21st July, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on
23rd August, 1989. As no agreement was reached both parties
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 27th October,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company's maintenance electricians have always
provided temporary supplies to outside people working on
projects on the Boyne Road site. In fact they had wired the
very first site offices installed for the project before the
disputed electrical contractor was brought on site. Since his
removal they continue to provide whatever services are
required.
2. The Company has argued that this is a separate site.
However access is still available for the electricians to
maintain existing supplies, and the site takes its supply from
the Company's boards which means it is electrically integrated
with the rest of the system as was the case with previous
projects.
3. The amount of work is relatively small and can easily be
handled by the electricians concerned. If there was a greater
amount of work then the Company would be entitled to invoke a
clause in the 1977 Agreement allowing for the use of
contractors (details supplied to the Court). The electrical
work on the project itself is being done by contractors
without any objections from the Union. It is only the
provision of temporary services to the site that the Union is
claiming must continue to be done by the Company's
electricians as it always has been in the past.
4. The long standing practice which has operated at the
Company cannot be changed at the whim of Management. The
Union might have been prepared to consider an exception where
weighty arguments could be put for the exception. In this
instance such a case cannot be made. The electricians have
supplied the services to the temporary site offices without
any disruption of their duties in the main plant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The shift Kiln Project has its own manager and staff. The
Manager reports to the Managing Director and has no
involvement with Factory operations. Neither has the Factory
Management any direct involvement or responsibility for the
Project. Both operate quite separately on adjacent sites.
2. The Company is entitled to use a contractor on the shaft
Kiln Project work under the terms of the 1977 Agreement. The
provision of the electrical services for site lighting,
contractor's offices, welding plant, workshops etc is an
integral part of the Project and is therefore the
responsibility of the Contractor concerned.
3. The electricians concerned are essentially maintenance
personnel. And whilst from time to time they would facilitate
a contractor by providing some minor service within the
Factory, they are not geared up to undertake the provision of
electrical services on a major project site external to the
immediate factory area.
4. There has never been a project of this magnitude since the
Company commenced operations so there is no precedent here for
who should install the required site services for such a large
Project. It is accepted practice for the contractor on a
large Project site to provide the site services.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. On the basis of the information provided and the arguments
made at the hearing the Court is not satisfied that the work
involved on the site to-date is such as to warrant the
introduction of outside contractors under the terms of the 1977
Agreement. The Court therefore recommends that the site services
work continue to be done by the maintenance staff until such time
as it becomes clear that the terms of the Agreement are clearly
applicable.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________________
10th November, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.