Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91342 Case Number: LCR13416 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: B & I LINE P.L.C. - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION;NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute regarding the employment of contractors to carry out overhaul work.
Recommendation:
3. Having considered the submissions made the Court is satisfied
that certain elements of the work in contention relates to a major
overhaul which would not normally fall within the context of
normal ongoing maintenance. In the circumstances the Court is of
the opinion that the terms of Clause 8 of the Agreement apply.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company specify to the
Unions the extent of the work which they require to be done by the
Valmet team, and undertake that there will be no diminution of
work opportunities for the duration of the Valmet contract and
that subject to this condition the Unions agree to the work
proceeding without further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91342 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13416
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: B & I LINE P.L.C.
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute regarding the employment of contractors to carry out
overhaul work.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 1990, the Company informed the Maintenance
Department staff of its intention to carry out a complete overhaul
of its key plant including a refurbishment of Valmet Carriers
(container stackers). This refurbishment of the Valmet Carriers
was to be under taken by contract. A Valmet craftsman, sent by
Valmet, the manufacturer in the United Kingdom, began the overhaul
in December, 1990. In March, 1991, the craftsmen in the Company
objected to the Valmet craftsmen carrying out the overhaul. On
26th March, 1991, the Unions formally wrote to the Company stating
that the 'overhauls on Valmets is work appropriate to the B & I
craftsmen.' The overhaul work continued and on 10th April, 1991,
the Company's craftsmen stopped work when the Valmet craftsmen was
instructed to work on another machine. Following discussion,
normal working was resumed to allow negotiations to take place on
11th April, 1991. During these discussions both sides referred to
Section 14 of the 1986 Agreement as endorsed in Clause 8 of the
1988 Agreement. Clause 14 reads as follows:
"Outside Contractors
Outside contractors may be employed on capital work and
during periods of staff shortages. The individual(s) engaged
will be under B & I supervision, but will remain in the
employment of the contractor. The contractor will not be
paid a basic rate greater than B & I craftsmen. There will
be no guarantee of additional overtime while the contractor
is engaged."
The Unions maintained that use of the Valmet craftsman was in
breach of the Agreement, whilst the Company insisted that it had
the right to use the outside contractor under the Agreement. Local
discussions failed to resolve the matter and on 12th April, 1991,
the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. The
planned overhauls were suspended to allow the matter be discussed.
No agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
23rd May, 1991, and on 3rd July, 1991, the Commission, in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990, referred the dispute to the Labour Court, for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 23rd
August, 1991.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is essential for customer service and safe operation
that vital equipment is maintained at an acceptable level of
repair and availability. The justification for having a
Maintenance Department is to carry out normal running
maintenance. Manning levels in the Maintenance Department
are adequate to deal with ongoing running maintenance. It is
accepted that capital works and/or refurbishment programmes
are not covered under ongoing maintenance at existing
manning levels, and agreements exist with the Unions to
supplement Company craftsmen in these circumstances. Clause
14 of the 1986 Agreement provides for the use of outside
contractors to be employed on capital work and during staff
shortages.
2. Notwithstanding that the man hours in the Maintenance
Department at normal levels of absenteeism would normally be
adequate to deal with ongoing maintenance, the reality is,
that there is a serious shortfall in the number of hours
available to the Company for this work. This is due to the
high level of absenteeism in the mechanical and electrical
section of the Maintenance Department which has doubled from
5.8% in 1988 to 11.6% in 1991. The resultant shortage of man
hours is further exacerbated by the craftsmen not taking up
all available overtime and through criticism by the craftsmen
concerned that the Company is making inordinate demands on
the number of hours they are currently expected to work. It
is essential that current manning levels be supplemented and
that this supplementary manning have the necessary expertise
to carry out the repair/refurbishment work.
3. A high level of expertise is required for the
refurbishment of a Valmet Carrier and the manufacturers
retain a team of highly skilled personnel specifically for
such overhauls. Because of the irregularity of such
overhauls, it is a far more effective and efficient use of
resources to develop this level of skill and expertise
centrally, rather than in-house by each individual customer.
4. The present disruption to the Company's service because
of the overhaul being suspended is causing inordinate
operational problems and customer complaints as well as
contributing to the present critical financial position in
the container service.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1986, it was agreed that contractors may be used to
backfill agreed manning levels when the Company's craftsmen
were not available. In effect, Company craftsmen had first
refusal on all maintenance and overhaul work and contractors
were used to fill shortfalls. This practice operated
successfully until the Company made a unilateral change which
precipitated this dispute.
2. The Company have in the past employed Valmet craftsmen
to carry out an appraisal of Valmet equipment. On such
occasions no tools were used and no repairs undertaken. On
the occasion in dispute the Valmet craftsman was asked to
carry out an overhaul. Objections by the craftsmen and shop
steward were ignored by the Company. Subsequent to the
overhaul work being suspended, the craftsmen suggested that
they complete the overhaul in order that the machine be
returned to service. The Company initially rejected this but
later requested that the craftsmen repair the machine and
return it to service. Co-operation was immediately given by
the craftsmen.
3. The Unions are committed to protecting the work of their
members and will defend agreements in this regard with all
means at their disposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. Having considered the submissions made the Court is satisfied
that certain elements of the work in contention relates to a major
overhaul which would not normally fall within the context of
normal ongoing maintenance. In the circumstances the Court is of
the opinion that the terms of Clause 8 of the Agreement apply.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company specify to the
Unions the extent of the work which they require to be done by the
Valmet team, and undertake that there will be no diminution of
work opportunities for the duration of the Valmet contract and
that subject to this condition the Unions agree to the work
proceeding without further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th September, 1991 John O'Connell
B.O'N. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman