Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9093 Case Number: LCR12813 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning painting duties.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of both parties notes
that the use of professional painters to carry out painting work
will not result in a loss of jobs or loss of earnings.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the wording of
the agreement be amended as follows "paint and mark areas in the
yard as directed" and a payment of #500 in full and final
settlement be made to the workers in respect of this amendment to
the agreement.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9093 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12813
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning painting duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company researchs, develops and manufactures adhesives,
sealants and coatings for the European market. It employs 330
workers in its two Dublin facilities at Tallaght and Ballyfermot.
This dispute concerns the duties of five general maintenance
workers. The schedule of duties for these workers includes "rough
paint and mark areas in yards". Over the last fifteen years the
workers concerned have carried out a broad range of painting
duties as required by the Company. In recent years the Company
has sought to bring in professional painters for certain jobs and
this has given rise to disputes over what constitutes rough
painting. The Union claims that any painting jobs previously
carried out by the workers concerned should be retained by them.
The Company claims that it has the right to determine what
constitutes rough painting and what painting jobs should be done
by professional painters or by the workers concerned. No
agreement was reached at local level and the matter was referred
on 12th January, 1990 to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 5th February, 1990
at which the Company made an offer of #350 per head for a change
in the wording of the relevant job description to read "paint and
mark areas in the yard as directed." This offer was not accepted
by the Union and as no agreement was reached the matter was
referred on 5th February, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour
Court which took place on 2nd March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the past fourteen or fifteen years the workers
concerned have abided by the terms of their job description
and carried out all the rough painting required of them by the
Company. Rough painting is defined by the workers concerned
as "any repainting of surfaces previously painted by Branch 12
members". If the workers concerned were regarded as competent
to carry out certain painting jobs then the Company should not
now seek to have this work done by professional painters.
2. The Union has no objection to the use of professional
painters on work which has not previously been carried out by
the workers concerned.
3. Painting duties usually resulted in overtime for these
workers and consequently contributed to their overall earnings
The proposed use of professional painters is an encroachment
on their duties which could ultimately lead to loss of
earnings and loss of jobs.
4. The workers concerned were prepared, under pressure, to
seek an amount of compensation in respect of their loss of
right to retain all painting previously carried out by them.
As the Company failed to respond to this claim the workers now
seek to retain the right to paint as heretofore.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company needs to maintain its buildings and therefore
should have the right to determine if and when to use general
maintenance workers or professional painters as required.
This right is enshrined in the job description but the Company
has been prevented from exercising it.
2. On occasions in the last few years when the Company needed
to paint areas requiring a professional finish, prolonged
negotiations had to take place with the Union to allow
painting to take place. The nett result is that little or no
painting has taken place in the past few years. The Company
is seeking to resolve the matter so that disputes of this
nature can be avoided in the future.
3. The Company is seeking to implement the job description as
it currently exists. In order to resolve the matter the
Company is prepared to consider a payment of #350 per person
for a change in the wording of the job description to read
"Paint and mark areas in the yard as directed".