Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9049 Case Number: LCR12754 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NATIONAL MEDICAL CARE - and - SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning an alleged breach of the Company/Union agreement.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submission of the parties, the Court
considers that the provision of protective equipment or appliances
to minimise or, if possible, to eliminate accidents is not a
matter of choice for employers but a matter of statutory
obligation. Accordingly the Court does not consider it
appropriate that the Trade Union should seek to negotiate a
reduction in the level of safety measures deemed necessary by the
Company.
The Court considers that the introduction of the total safety
glasses policy should have been dealt with in a manner that would
have fully retained the acknowledged good industrial relations
climate that has existed in the Company. The Court recommends
that the relationship be restored by immediate resolution of the
outstanding safety issues mentioned by the Union in the course of
the hearing.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9049 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12754
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NATIONAL MEDICAL CARE
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an alleged breach of the Company/Union
agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. National Medical Care, Medical Products Division, (formerly
known as Erika Ltd) is a exclusively owned subsidiary of National
Medical Care, Medical Products Division, Rockleigh, New Jersey,
U.S.A. In 1980, it commenced operations at its plant at
Cloverhill, Clondalkin, Dublin 22. The Company currently employs
130 workers. It manufactures medical devices for use in the
treatment of end-stage renal failure (kidney failure).
3. On 15th January, 1990, the President of National Medical Care,
U.S.A. visited its plant in Dublin, to review and discuss
expansion plans with local management. He observed from his
visit, that all of the National Medical Care workers engaged in
the manufacturing operations, were in breach of the Corporate
Safety Policy, by not wearing safety glasses. Company Management
issued a directive to the workforce, within the manufacturing area
that safety glasses must be worn at all times. If the directive
was not fully operationalised by 22nd January, 1990, production
would be stopped, until such time as it was implemented. The
Union was informed on 16th January of the directive. Discussions
took place between management and the workforce affected.
Agreement was reached to wear safety glasses in some areas of the
factory, pending referral to the Labour Court. The dispute was
the subject of a Labour Court, Conciliation Conference on 18th
January, 1990. Workers agreed to wear safety glasses from 22nd
January under protest, pending the outcome of a Labour Court
investigation. The Court investigated the hearing on 26th
January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union had established a procedural agreement between
the Company and its workers prior to the Company's directive.
The Agreement functioned well in the past in handling
grievances and disputes.
2. Workers are now aggrieved by the Company's action on
27th October, 1989 in issuing the instruction on the wearing
of safety glasses without prior consultation.
3. Workers' major concern is that the Company breached the
agreement and could do so again. The Company's local
management when pressed on this point, could not give a clear
and categoric statement that there would never be a repetition
of the major breach of the agreement in the future, on any
subject. Should serious problems arise in the future and
local negotiations break down, the workers cannot be asked to
abide by the agreed procedures, when the Company can ignore
them.
4. The manner in which the Company has acted on the safety
glasses issue will have long term and far-reaching effects in
Company/Workers relations. The trust of workers in the agreed
procedures as a way of resolving differences had been severely
damaged. Failure of the Company to treat their workers as
adults and worthy of proper consultation on matters that
effect their working lives has left an air of dissatisfaction
in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. The plant in Dublin was unique, in that it was the only
manufacturing unit not operating a total safety glasses
policy. It was the Company President's understanding that
this situation had changed and that there was total compliance
with Corporate Policy. Safety has been given a priority
rating, and is an integral part of the performance rating of
all Company operations. Safety plans and targets are drawn
up, monitored and reported upon in no less rigorous a manner
than those of Production.
2. The Company (Dublin plant) availed of the services of a
consultant group National Industrial Fire and Safety Training
Centre Ltd (N.I.F.A.S.T.) in late 1988 to :-
(1) To establish where the operation was currently
placed on the safety spectrum.
(2) To make recommendations which, when implemented,
would ensure that all activity was expedited to
the highest practicable standards.
Recommendations were suggested by the consultant for the
General Services Area, Machinery and Chemical Safety. These
areas have a high frequency of minor eye accidents. The
Consultants suggested the compulsory policy of wearing of
safety glasses, in operations which had recorded accidents or
where the potential for injury was seen to be significant.
3. In mid 1989 the implementation of safety glasses was
achieved in Laboratories, Workshop, Kart Production Area and
the Dialyser Development Area with the exception of the
Dialyser Production Area (60 workers are employed within this
function). The Dialyser Production area requires the dialyser
environment to have controlled conditions. In its
manufacturing process, workers are employed on machinery with
moving parts, commercial tonnages of liquid chemicals under
elevated pressure, air pressurised leak-testing equipment and
a variety of cutting and packaging equipment. Operators whose
job function of itself does not appear to harbour risks are,
nevertheless, never far removed from equipment which does.
Clearly, a total Safety Glasses Policy within this area puts
all concerned on higher safety ground. The Company has
pointed out that there is a potential danger to operators
because of the nature and type of equipment used in operations
carried on close to those work functions which 'per se' did
not contain a propensity for injury.
4. Section 8(d) of the Safety Industry Act, 1980 lays down
than an employee:
"shall use any clothing, equipment, appliance or
other means or thing so provided (whether for his
use alone or for use by him in common with others)
for securing his health, safety or welfare while
at work".
were brought to the attention of all concerned during the
discussions. Section 9(c) of the Safety, Health and Welfare
at Work Act, 1989 further reinforces the responsibility which
the employee has for his/her own safety while at work.
Despite all of this it was clear from early on in those
discussions that the outcome would not result in the
attainment of a total Safety Glasses Policy within the
Dialyser Area. However, it appeared to local Management that
a sufficient extension of the existing limited policy was
attainable by agreement which would lower the level of
potential risk to an acceptable level.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submission of the parties, the Court
considers that the provision of protective equipment or appliances
to minimise or, if possible, to eliminate accidents is not a
matter of choice for employers but a matter of statutory
obligation. Accordingly the Court does not consider it
appropriate that the Trade Union should seek to negotiate a
reduction in the level of safety measures deemed necessary by the
Company.
The Court considers that the introduction of the total safety
glasses policy should have been dealt with in a manner that would
have fully retained the acknowledged good industrial relations
climate that has existed in the Company. The Court recommends
that the relationship be restored by immediate resolution of the
outstanding safety issues mentioned by the Union in the course of
the hearing.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
13th February, 1990 ---------------
M.N/U.S. Chairman