Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91551 Case Number: ARB911 Section / Act: S70 Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning Union time/representation.
Recommendation:
4. The comprehensive agreement dated 24/6/90 which was negotiated
by the Union and the Company for a return to work following the 14
weeks strike, included agreement to immediate negotiations on
company proposals regarding "Union Time". The proposals covered
cost, structures and procedures.
Negotiation took place over a protracted period and culminated
with the acceptance by both sides of a final clarification dated
9/7/91 from the Industrial Relations Officer who Chaired the
negotiations. Both sides agreed to recommend the final negotiated
document - it was accepted by the Company and rejected by the
work-force on 3/10/91.
At the Court hearing, neither side could identify any specific
proposals which had given rise to the rejection but it was
commonly considered that the hardship being sustained by workers
because of short-time working and the general state of the
business was a significant factor. The Union stated that there
was also a perception among workers that management
interpretations on other matters arising from the comprehensive
agreement were one-sided and that further change from the
historical situation would have additional negative effects for
them. In addition, the Union argued that it had the right to
determine its own structures. As a result of the rejection of the
proposals, by the membership the Union was now seeking the
continuation of traditional negotiating arrangements.
Having considered the submissions and the oral evidence presented,
it is clear to the Court that there was agreement between the
parties in June, 1990 to negotiate change in the various elements
of "Union Time". It is also clear that protracted and productive
negotiations did take place leading to both sides recommending
proposals for acceptance. In these circumstances the Court does
not find sustainable, the Unions proposal for the continuation of
traditional negotiating arrangements.
While the Union has sole right to determine its own internal
structures, the Company must be party to negotiating arrangements
and the related costs. The Court believes that the establishment
of a cost figure alone, without taking account of procedural
arrangements would be a sterile exercise likely to lead to an
unworkable industrial relations situation. In this respect, the
Court regards an effective Union and appropriate arrangements to
deal efficiently and speedily with disputed matters are essential
to good industrial relations in the business.
In the absence of any specific objection to the proposals, the
Court considers that the provision of the Monitoring Committee is
of particular importance as it provides an opportunity for both
sides to test the practicality and effectiveness of the individual
proposals under the guidance of an independent Chairman. It also
gives reassurance of even-handedness in interpretations.
It is the Court's view that the proposals which were finally
agreed at conciliation are in line with good industrial relations
practice, and subject to test in the trial period, do not place
unreasonable constraints on either the Company or the Union.
In these circumstances the Court considers that both sides should
accept the final proposals which emanated from the Conciliation
process with the amendment that the trial period run for a period
of 18 months from the date of introduction of the proposals.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91551 ARBITRATION NO. ARB191
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 70 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: WATERFORD CRYSTAL
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Union time/representation.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following a 14 week strike a comprehensive agreement dated
24th June, 1990 was negotiated between the parties. Included was
an agreement on immediate negotiations on company proposals
regarding Union time. There were numerous meetings and
conciliation conferences which resulted in a final document being
recommended for acceptance by both parties. The Company accepted
the document and it was rejected by the workforce.
3. As part of current agreements it was agreed by the parties to
refer the dispute for binding Labour Court arbitration. The Court
investigated the matter in Waterford on 5th November, 1991.
DECISION:
4. The comprehensive agreement dated 24/6/90 which was negotiated
by the Union and the Company for a return to work following the 14
weeks strike, included agreement to immediate negotiations on
company proposals regarding "Union Time". The proposals covered
cost, structures and procedures.
Negotiation took place over a protracted period and culminated
with the acceptance by both sides of a final clarification dated
9/7/91 from the Industrial Relations Officer who Chaired the
negotiations. Both sides agreed to recommend the final negotiated
document - it was accepted by the Company and rejected by the
work-force on 3/10/91.
At the Court hearing, neither side could identify any specific
proposals which had given rise to the rejection but it was
commonly considered that the hardship being sustained by workers
because of short-time working and the general state of the
business was a significant factor. The Union stated that there
was also a perception among workers that management
interpretations on other matters arising from the comprehensive
agreement were one-sided and that further change from the
historical situation would have additional negative effects for
them. In addition, the Union argued that it had the right to
determine its own structures. As a result of the rejection of the
proposals, by the membership the Union was now seeking the
continuation of traditional negotiating arrangements.
Having considered the submissions and the oral evidence presented,
it is clear to the Court that there was agreement between the
parties in June, 1990 to negotiate change in the various elements
of "Union Time". It is also clear that protracted and productive
negotiations did take place leading to both sides recommending
proposals for acceptance. In these circumstances the Court does
not find sustainable, the Unions proposal for the continuation of
traditional negotiating arrangements.
While the Union has sole right to determine its own internal
structures, the Company must be party to negotiating arrangements
and the related costs. The Court believes that the establishment
of a cost figure alone, without taking account of procedural
arrangements would be a sterile exercise likely to lead to an
unworkable industrial relations situation. In this respect, the
Court regards an effective Union and appropriate arrangements to
deal efficiently and speedily with disputed matters are essential
to good industrial relations in the business.
In the absence of any specific objection to the proposals, the
Court considers that the provision of the Monitoring Committee is
of particular importance as it provides an opportunity for both
sides to test the practicality and effectiveness of the individual
proposals under the guidance of an independent Chairman. It also
gives reassurance of even-handedness in interpretations.
It is the Court's view that the proposals which were finally
agreed at conciliation are in line with good industrial relations
practice, and subject to test in the trial period, do not place
unreasonable constraints on either the Company or the Union.
In these circumstances the Court considers that both sides should
accept the final proposals which emanated from the Conciliation
process with the amendment that the trial period run for a period
of 18 months from the date of introduction of the proposals.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
15th November, 1991 ----------------
M.D./U.S. Chairman