Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91526 Case Number: LCR13482 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BRAUN (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute regarding the interpretation of the Company/Union Agreement and of the "status quo" in that context.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Company/Union agreement which it has
been requested to interpret has been in existence since 1983, and
appears to have operated successfully since then. It is evident
to the Court however that the current dispute arose as a result of
an interpretation of the agreement and a subsequent transfer by
the Company of an employee in circumstances which were never
comprehended by the Union. However, having regard to the wording
of the relevant clause of the agreement as presently written the
Court upholds the Company's interpretation.
Insofar as the second issue, the 'status quo' is concerned, it
appears to the Court as a consequence of the above paragraph that
in this instance the 'status quo' is the continued operating of
the agreement.
Accordingly the Court does not find the Company in breach of the
Company/Union agreement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91526 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13482
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: BRAUN (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute regarding the interpretation of the Company/Union
Agreement and of the "status quo" in that context.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture and assembly of
personal care appliances and employs in the region of 1,200
people. There is in existence a Company/Union Agreement Clause 24
of which covers productivity and which states:-
"The Company and the Union undertake to co-operate in every
way possible to raise productivity and to maximise output.
The Union accepts the principle on interchangeability of
employees between jobs within the plant and the allocation
and rotation of employees shall be at the sole discretion of
Management. The Union accepts that the work study discipline
is an important contribution to Manufacturing Industry. The
results of any work study exercise will be communicated to
the Union Representatives".
In early 1991 the Company advertised a temporary vacancy for the
position of electrician within the Electrical Maintenance
Department. As there were no internal applications for the post,
an external appointment was made in accordance with normal
procedures. There was a downturn in business and though the
vacancy still remained the Company decided, because of the cost
factor, not to employ the external applicant who had not yet taken
up the positon. At this time there was a technician who was
temporarily surplus in the General Assembly Area and who was also
suitably qualified as an electrician. The Company proposed to
transfer the worker to the Electrical Department temporarily in
order to fill the vacancy. The Company claimed that it was within
its right under Clause 24 to transfer staff in order to facilitate
the particular needs of the Company. The Union strongly objected
to the proposals and claimed that by placing an extreme
interpretation on Clause 24 the Company was abusing the Agreement.
There was also disagreement on the definition of "status quo" in
this context. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on 26th August, 1991. A conciliation conference was
held on 17th September, 1991 at which agreement was not reached.
On 2nd October, 1991 the Labour Relations Commission referred the
dispute to the Labour under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 18th
October, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Interchangeability within the Company has been operating
with the full co-operation of the Union for the past 17 years
and the Union accepts the need for this interchangeability.
In the case of the particular worker the Union alleges that
the Company had no right to transfer him as he had not applied
for the vacancy and the Company had already, through the
normal procedures, appointed an external person.
2. The Union is not disputing Clause 24 of the Agreement but
is disputing the Company's interpretation of it. The Union
cannot accept that the Company has the sole right to transfer
workers at any time without the agreement of the Union. The
Company's interpretation removes all rights of the workers
which have been enjoyed and established over the years.
3. "Status quo" as understood by the Union is that when an
issue is in dispute the situation will remain unchanged until
the dispute is resolved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 24 of the Company/Union Agreement clearly gives the
Company the sole right to interchange workers at its
discretion. Clause 24 enables the Company to make a cost
effective use of all workers particularly in an over-
production situation. The Company accepts and acknowledges
the Union's co-operation on interchangeability over the years
but maintains that the situation which arose regarding the
particular technician was the first time the Company had to
apply its sole discretion under the Company/Union Agreement.
2. The Company's interpretation of "status quo" in the context
of the Company/Union Agreement is that when the Company has
made changes which it has considered necessary but which are
disputed by the Union the new arrangements will remain pending
the resolution of the dispute.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the Company/Union agreement which it has
been requested to interpret has been in existence since 1983, and
appears to have operated successfully since then. It is evident
to the Court however that the current dispute arose as a result of
an interpretation of the agreement and a subsequent transfer by
the Company of an employee in circumstances which were never
comprehended by the Union. However, having regard to the wording
of the relevant clause of the agreement as presently written the
Court upholds the Company's interpretation.
Insofar as the second issue, the 'status quo' is concerned, it
appears to the Court as a consequence of the above paragraph that
in this instance the 'status quo' is the continued operating of
the agreement.
Accordingly the Court does not find the Company in breach of the
Company/Union agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
21st November, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.O'S./J.C.