Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91287 Case Number: LCR13312 Section / Act: S26(5) Parties: HARP (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Harmonisation of conditions.
Recommendation:
3. The Court, having met the parties and heard their views on
the present dispute sets out its recommendation below. Before
setting out its recommendation, however, the Court wishes to place
on record that it has taken into account the stated positions of
both parties in relation to Labour Court settlement proposal of 4
August, 1988 and the concurrent 5 year agreement.
The Court accepts
(i) that the Union's aspirations to closer harmonisation of
conditions and working hours have not been fully met and
(ii) that the Company's movement to 38 hours would constitute
"closer harmonisation".
The Court recommends, therefore, that both parties accept the
stated position of each other in respect of the current agreement
and that the previous proposals which were rejected be amended as
follows:
(a) That from the week commencing 6th January, 1992 a
working week based on 38 hours be introduced.
(b) Upon accepting this recommendation the Joint Union Group
members be paid a sum of #500 with a further #500 to be
paid on 1 December, 1991 (subject to usual pro rata
arrangements).
Acceptance of this recommendation does not restrict the unions
from seeking "closer harmonisation" of conditions and working
hours following the expiry of the current agreements, nor does it
impose a commitment on the Company to further improve existing
conditions. Any claims in this respect made by the unions should
be dealt with by negotiation in accordance with Company/Union
procedures.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91287 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13312
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(5), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: HARP (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Harmonisation of conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987 the Company proposed a 5 year investment plan which
included proposals regarding compensation for loss of earnings and
harmonisation of conditions. These issues were the subject of a
dispute which was investigated by the Labour Court who issued the
following recommendation on 12th July, 1988 (LCR11947):-
"RECOMMENDATION
The Court recommends that on acceptance by both parties of
this recommendation the lump sum of #2,050 be paid in full.
The Court also recommends that the Company's offer on
harmonisation of conditions be accepted subject to the
provision that the question of further steps towards full
parity of hours of work may be negotiated after 1990 in the
light of circumstances then prevailing."
Following the issue of this recommendation a conciliation
conference was held and settlement proposals dated 4th August,
1988 were issued by the Industrial Relations Officer (I.R.O.).
Clause 3 of the settlement proposals date:-
"Negotiations to take place between the parties, beginning in
1990, on closer harmonisation of conditions. Both sides
committed to trying to achieve agreement, if necessary under
the chairmanship of the undersigned."
The settlement proposals were accepted by the parties and in May,
1990 the Unions requested negotiations with the Company on closer
harmonisation of conditions. A number of meetings were held but
no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court as provided for in Clause
3 of the 1988 settlement. Following a conciliation conference on
12th October, 1990 the following proposals were issued in
writing:-
1) The Company is prepared to set aside its interpretation
of Clause 3 of the Settlement Proposal of 4/8/1988.
2) Clause 3 should now be amended to read:
"Negotiations to take place between the parties, at
the expiry of the Five Year Agreement, on closer
harmonisation of conditions and hours of work.
Both sides committed to trying to achieve
agreement, if necessary under the chairmanship of
Mr. Ray Mc Gee."
3) The above revised Clause 3 will not be prejudiced by the
current national pay discussions.
4) To facilitate both parties in reaching a resolution
along the lines described above, a lump sum of #500 will
be paid to JUG members (usual pro rata arrangements to
apply) on acceptance of these proposals.
The Unions rejected the proposals and the dispute was referred to
an independent mediator who issued his report in November, 1990
(details supplied to the Court). The mediator's report included
the following Company offer (Clause 4):-
4. Offer
(a) From the first full week at end of April, 1992 (i.e. in
week commencing Monday 27 April, 1992) a working week
based on 38 hours will be introduced.
(b) Upon notification of acceptance of this offer, a lump
sum of #300 will be paid to J.U.G. members (usual pro
rata arrangements to apply).
(c) A further lump sum of #300 will be paid to J.U.G.
members (usual pro-rata arrangements to apply) in first
week of December, 1991.
The Unions rejected the proposals contained in the mediator's
report. Their claim is for a 37 hour week for general operatives
and craftsmen with a facility to seek further reductions. On 22nd
May, 1991 the Unions held a general meeting and gave the Company
notice of its intention to enter into a dispute with effect from
6th June, 1991. The Labour Court, following consultation with the
Labour Relations Commission, investigated the dispute under
Section 26(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 5th June,
1991. The Court issued a recommendation by letter on 10th June,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1987 the Company introduced a 5 year plan which
proposed closer harmonisation of conditions between staff and
other workers. Harmonisation of conditions was covered by
Clause 3 of the 1988 settlement proposals which provided for
negotiations on the issue in 1990. The Company introduced
the idea of workers (general operatives and craftsman) parity
with staff. It is now trying to renege on its obligations
under the 1988 settlement proposals.
2. Harmonisation of conditions under the 5 year plan has
not been met. Although the 5 year plan expires in 1992, this
should not take away or restrict Union's aspiration towards
closer harmonisation. There should be a facility to
negotiate further reductions in working hours.
3. The Unions received an aspiration towards a 35 hour week
in 1987. As the 39 hour week was introduced under the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) the workers have
received no real benefit under the 5 year plan in terms of
reduced working hours. The Unions claim for a 37 hour week
with movement towards a further reduction is reasonable in
the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1987 there was an aspiration towards closer
harmonisation of conditions for staff and the rest of the
workers. Harmonisation involves a whole area of working
conditions and does not mean that the lowest common
denominator of the staff working week should be used. It is
a two-way process and does not mean that the workers should
have parity with staff in relation to working hours.
2. The Company has fulfilled its obligations on the
aspiration towards closer harmonisation. It has introduced a
39 hour week and has offered to introduce a 38 hour week from
April, 1992. The Company is not in a position to make a
further reduction in the working week or give any other
commitments on a reduced working week.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court, having met the parties and heard their views on
the present dispute sets out its recommendation below. Before
setting out its recommendation, however, the Court wishes to place
on record that it has taken into account the stated positions of
both parties in relation to Labour Court settlement proposal of 4
August, 1988 and the concurrent 5 year agreement.
The Court accepts
(i) that the Union's aspirations to closer harmonisation of
conditions and working hours have not been fully met and
(ii) that the Company's movement to 38 hours would constitute
"closer harmonisation".
The Court recommends, therefore, that both parties accept the
stated position of each other in respect of the current agreement
and that the previous proposals which were rejected be amended as
follows:
(a) That from the week commencing 6th January, 1992 a
working week based on 38 hours be introduced.
(b) Upon accepting this recommendation the Joint Union Group
members be paid a sum of #500 with a further #500 to be
paid on 1 December, 1991 (subject to usual pro rata
arrangements).
Acceptance of this recommendation does not restrict the unions
from seeking "closer harmonisation" of conditions and working
hours following the expiry of the current agreements, nor does it
impose a commitment on the Company to further improve existing
conditions. Any claims in this respect made by the unions should
be dealt with by negotiation in accordance with Company/Union
procedures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________
18th July, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.S./M.O'C.