Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90657 Case Number: LCR13145 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union for payment in respect of time lost by eight craftsmen.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Having regard to the fact that the question of safety was involved
the Court is of the opinion that the issue of the passage to the
sand plant might have been more carefully handled by both parties.
The Court is satisfied that on balance the work stoppage from
10 a.m. on the morning in question should not have occurred and in
the normal course of events would recommend against the Union's
claim. However on this occasion to avoid the issue of safety
becoming a matter of further contention in the area and in
anticipation of the re-establishment of the Safety Committee the
Court recommends that the men concerned be paid for the time lost.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90657 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13145
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for payment in respect of time lost by
eight craftsmen.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arose as a result of the condition of an outside
yard at the rear of the foundry in Inchicore Works where a sanding
machine is located. The workers concerned who are iron moulders
have to go from the foundry to the sand machine along a path which
they allege had become slippery due to very bad weather. The
Union claims that Management was advised on Friday 5th January,
1990 that the path was unsafe and requested that the area be
cleaned up. The Union requested that staff be brought in on
Saturday on overtime to clean up the yard. Management refused
this request on the grounds that it could be done more efficiently
on Monday. On Monday 8th January the workers concerned refused to
operate the sand machine on the grounds that the conditions in the
yard were unsafe. As a result of the workers' action they were
removed from the payroll and lost two and three quarter hours pay.
The Union is claiming that the workers should be paid. Management
has rejected the claim on the grounds that though the path was in
a dirty and wet condition, it was not unsafe and the workers
should have carried out their duties as normal. The issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
9th May, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on the 27th
August, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 15th September, 1990. A Court
hearing was held on the 14th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the employees concerned received an instruction to go
out to work in the yard they responded by advising Management
of the unsafe conditions in the yard and that it would be
unduly hazardous for them to work in the prevailing
conditions. They were removed from the payroll. This
decision by the Company was taken contrary to clause 1(c) of
the Company/Union grievance procedure which states, "where it
is claimed that the work involved is of a dangerous or unduly
hazardous nature and agreement is not reached with the
foreman, the foreman will refer the matter, without delay to
higher Management whose instructions must be carried out. At
the stage where agreement is not reached with the foreman the
work which is claimed to be dangerous or unduly hazardous will
be discontinued pending the decision of higher management."
This did not happen in the present dispute and in fact
Management agreed with the Union representatives at a meeting
on Monday 8th January that the yard would be clean up.
2. Management's attitude in this dispute is difficult to
understand in light of the new legislation which deals with
matters of health and safety in the workplace. They state
that they will decide what is safe or unsafe and if anything
happens to a worker they will accept the blame. This is
totally unacceptable to the Union and is contrary to all good
industrial relations practices.
3. There are two agreements with the Company (details
supplied to the Court) which cover the craftsmen concerned
dealing with grievance and disciplinary procedures. Neither
of these agreements contain a clause that gives the Company
the right to remove any of their workers from the clock and
subsequently deduct two and three quarter hours pay from their
salary. Under the procedures set out in the disciplinary
agreement there is a requirement for the Company to make out a
charge and a right of the employee to appeal against the
charge. This procedure was not observed in this particular
case. Furthermore the grievance procedure under clause 1(c)
which has already been referred to deals with disputes
regarding unsafe working conditions which was the reason for
this dispute. This procedure was not adhered to.
4. The removal of eight craftsmen was completely irregular
and unsustainable within the context of the agreements
referred to and it is totally against all natural justice and
good industrial relations procedures to penalise workers
without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves. The
Union is very concerned with the Company's negative approach
to this dispute in the light of the record of accidents in the
Inchicore Works which run at 8% for each of the last three
years, and in light of the present legislation which has been
designed to protect workers against accidents.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On Monday 8th January at 8.20 a.m. the foreman was
informed by the Union that the workers concerned had been
instructed not to work in the foundry yard as it was in a
dangerous condition. When it was pointed out to one of the
engineering operatives involved that he could go to his place
of work by an alternative route, he did so. The iron moulders
refused to go to the sand plant even though it was nearer to
the foundry than the location to which the engineering
operative had been directed and access to it was by way of a
concrete pathway. The foreman, on being told that the
specific problem was sand on the pathway, carried out an
inspection and satisfied himself that it was not dangerous and
no different to the usual conditions for a wet day.
2. The workers concerned were advised that if they refused to
operate the sand plant they would not be paid. They refused
to carry out the work. When subsequently the yard was cleared
and an iron moulder went to operate the sand plant at 12.30
hours all the other iron moulders were paid from that time.
3. The sand on the pathway was a normal occurrence and in the
opinion of Management did not constitute an accident hazard.
Apart from being an essential ingredient in the manufacture of
moulds sand is used on the foundry floor in the casting area
as a safety procedure. Consequently moulders who also carry
out the casting process would be well used to working in sand.
As a result of the stoppage a full days production in the
foundry was lost.
4. There have been other instances in the past where staff
have refused to carry out instructions and as a result have
not been paid for the period during which they were inactive.
The Company's policy in this matter is clear cut, staff are
paid while they are carrying out their duties and if they
refuse to do so and decline to carry out the work allotted to
them they will not be paid. Because of previous incidents in
the works the staff involved knew of the consequences of their
actions and decided on this course in the full knowledge that
they would not be paid.
5. Because of the nature of the work in the foundry, and the
dangers associated with it, safety has a very high priority.
If an accident occurs or a hazard is identified preventative
measures are taken to avoid the accident in future or to
eliminate the hazard. Visits of the factory inspector are
welcomed and on his last visit he found no irregularity to
draw to the attention of Management.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Having regard to the fact that the question of safety was involved
the Court is of the opinion that the issue of the passage to the
sand plant might have been more carefully handled by both parties.
The Court is satisfied that on balance the work stoppage from
10 a.m. on the morning in question should not have occurred and in
the normal course of events would recommend against the Union's
claim. However on this occasion to avoid the issue of safety
becoming a matter of further contention in the area and in
anticipation of the re-establishment of the Safety Committee the
Court recommends that the men concerned be paid for the time lost.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
15th January, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.