Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90528 Case Number: LCR13027 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WATERFORD FOODS PLC - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the use of clerical contract workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Company did breach the
Company/Union agreement, although this may have arisen due to
unforeseen circumstances.
With regard to the main issue in dispute - the recruitment of
contract clerical workers - the Court recommends that the parties
should immediately enter into negotiations on matters relating to
training existing staff, recruiting temporary and contract workers
with a view to drawing up a comprehensive agreement which will
avoid similar dispute situations arising in the future.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90528 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13027
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WATERFORD FOODS PLC
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the use of clerical contract workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. At the Group Headquarters in Dungarvan, normal clerical work
is carried out by a staff of forty eight permanent employees and
seven temporary employees. In 1987 a dispute arose in relation to
the employment of workers on a contract basis to carry out
clerical work. The Union was of the opinion that such work should
be carried out by the clerical workers who are on the temporary
list/panel. At this time, management stated in writing that the
workers involved would not be re-employed unless they applied for
a position and were satisfactorily processed through the usual
channels. In 1988 the Company floated a share issue and employed
three former employees for a fixed period on a short-term contract
basis to administer the flotation. This was again disputed by the
Union and following meetings management confirmed in writing by
letter of 23rd August, 1988, that in future when new clerical work
arose there would be full consultation with the Union Committee on
how this work would be carried out. In 1990 another flotation was
introduced and the three workers who had previously been employed,
together with one further experienced clerical assistant, were
again contracted for a period of twelve weeks to administer the
issue. This was objected to by the Union whose position is that
this breached agreements as there was no consultation with the
Union and that permanent workers should have been trained into the
work (if this was necessary) while the contract employees were
working and that temporary workers be employed. This was rejected
by management whose position is that the administration of a share
issue requires experience and specialised training and therefore
skilled contract workers should be employed. On 28th May, 1990
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 13th June, 1990 at
which agreement was not reached and on 7th September, 1990 the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 12th
September, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management's decision in 1987 to employ workers on a
contract basis to carry out new clerical work, was as far as
the Union was concerned a breach of all Union/Company
agreements covering the employment of clerical workers.
However, management gave what the Union considered to be a
reasonable commitment for future situations (details supplied
to the Court). In August, 1988 management employed three
former workers on a contract basis to carry out clerical work
concerned with the transfer of its assets and business to a
new Company. Again this was done without any prior
consultation with the Union and in clear breach of
Union/Company agreements. However, management confirmed in
writing on 23rd August, 1988 that in future where new work of
a clerical nature occurs, there would be full prior
consultation with the Union Committee as to how this work
would be carried out (details supplied to the Court).
2. In May, 1990 management again breached the agreements and
the arrangements which had been confirmed in writing on 23rd
August, 1988, when they employed four former clerical workers
on a contract basis on clerical duties associated with a share
issue (details supplied to the Court). At a meeting held on
28th May, 1990 agreement was reached that the contract workers
would finish on 31st July, 1990 and that management would
deduct Union dues. However, management subsequently extended
the employment of the contract workers by three weeks and to
date the Union dues have not been received by the Union.
Management refused the Union's request that permanent workers
be trained into the work (if this was necessary) while the
contract employees were working and temporary workers be taken
on. The clerical workers in the Company are fully capable of
carrying out this or any new clerical work when it arises.
These workers have given management every co-operation in
relation to change, new technology and flexibility.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has not sought to privatise or contract out
any normal clerical duties. The administration of the
flotation of a share issue requires considerable experience
and specialised training. As it is not ongoing clerical work
but occurs at irregular intervals, it is more appropriate to
engage skilled contract workers. The contract personnel
chosen to carry out the work have appropriate skills and
previous training and therefore can carry out the relevant
duties effectively and without further training. The
employment of fixed term contract workers did not in any way
encroach on the duties of existing clerical workers who were
fully occupied at their normal work and consequently it did
not result in short time, redundancy or lay off of existing
clerical workers. In this case there was a limited timescale
involved, the Company tried unsuccessfully to contact the
Union prior to taking on the contract workers.
2. It is quite normal for the Company to use contract
employment in other areas of the business, where such action
does not affect the level of earnings or employment of regular
staff. It should be noted that due to centralisation of
certain activities, additional clerical workers have been
recruited at the Head Office in Dungarvan (details supplied to
the Court). The Union's proposal that existing clerical
workers should be trained to administer the share issue and
that further temporary workers should be brought on site and
trained to carry out their work is ineffective, disruptive and
expensive. The fact that the administration of the scheme
requires specific skills and training which the contract
workers already have renders the Union's proposal both
expensive and inappropriate. In the circumstances, the
engagement of contract staff was reasonable in so far as it
did not affect the working conditions or earning potential of
existing workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Company did breach the
Company/Union agreement, although this may have arisen due to
unforeseen circumstances.
With regard to the main issue in dispute - the recruitment of
contract clerical workers - the Court recommends that the parties
should immediately enter into negotiations on matters relating to
training existing staff, recruiting temporary and contract workers
with a view to drawing up a comprehensive agreement which will
avoid similar dispute situations arising in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________________
27th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.