Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9263 Case Number: LCR13608 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PENNEYS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute regarding the use of a contractor.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having heard the submissions in this case accepts
that the Company did not meet the normal practice of consultation
with the Union on the use of contractors in the area of dispute.
In the circumstances outlined at the hearing the Court accepts
that, in this case, the Company's action did not impact on the
earnings or job security of the claimants.
The Court, however, is of the opinion that consultation with the
Unions should take place when changes of work practice are
envisaged. The Court recommends that the Union accepts the
present changes on the understanding the Company will honour its
commitment given to the Court in the event of proposed changes in
the future.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9263 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13608
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: PENNEYS
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding the use of a contractor.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claim is on behalf of 11 workers employed as
storepersons in the Company's Mary Street branch. The workers
perform a broad range of tasks in servicing the needs of the
store for stock and equipment. There are 13 seperate
stockrooms in the branch.
2. The accounts department is housed in offices which are
across the road from the branch and every 4-6 weeks the
workers were required to move files across to the stores area
in the branch. The Company claims that this took 2-3 hours at
a time. Up to February, 1991, a waste disposal company
removed rubbish every morning. The Company in February, 1989,
installed a compactor and with computerisation, the need for
this service disminished. The Company entered into a contract
with the Confidential Document Disposal Company and in April,
1991 advised the shop steward that that Company would remove
files from the account office as the need arose.
3. The workers claim that the work is proper to them and
following local negotiations the dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was
held on 15th November, 1991. A resolution was not possible
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on 24th January, 1992. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 27th February, 1992.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company engaged an outside contractor without
consulting with or obtaining the agreement of the Union. The
shop steward was informed of the decision by the Company on
the day the contractor was introduced to take over what has
been part of the workers' normal workload for 16 years. The
change has resulted in a reduction in the workers' normal
duties.
2. The Union objected to the engagement of the contractor
and the unilateral decision of the Company. The Company was
not prepared to go through normal procedures and has refused
to let the "status quo" remain until the dispute can be
resolved. The action is of concern to the workers as it poses
a direct threat to their future employment with the Company.
The work was carried out by the workers within their normal
working week and at no extra cost to the Company, for 16
years.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The movement of confidential files by the workers
evolved as a result of co-operation from the workers. The
role of the workers (unique to the branch) has developed
through various negotiations/productivity agreements with the
Union. The movement of files has never been a feature of the
discussions.
2. The work is not significant having regard to time taken
to do it or the totality of work performed by the workers.
The work has been carried out since April, 1991 by the
Confidential Document Disposal Company and the Union has not
demonstrated that the workers have suffered as a result. It
is more practical and efficient to contract out the work. The
workers are engaged in performing a variety of other tasks
which are their real priority.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having heard the submissions in this case accepts
that the Company did not meet the normal practice of consultation
with the Union on the use of contractors in the area of dispute.
In the circumstances outlined at the hearing the Court accepts
that, in this case, the Company's action did not impact on the
earnings or job security of the claimants.
The Court, however, is of the opinion that consultation with the
Unions should take place when changes of work practice are
envisaged. The Court recommends that the Union accepts the
present changes on the understanding the Company will honour its
commitment given to the Court in the event of proposed changes in
the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
1st April, 1992 -------------
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman