Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91656 Case Number: LCR13624 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD GAIS EIREANN (SOUTHERN REGION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of the Company/Union Agreement in relation to: (1) Use of contractors - customer service operations - Clause 15. (2) Interpretation of "after hours customer service" - Clause 40.
Recommendation:
9. Claim (1) Use of Contractors:
The Court is satisfied that the contention by the Union that the
terms of the Agreement were informally modified in the manner
stated, arose from a misunderstanding particularly in the light of
the intentions clearly stated by the Bord in the Agreement and all
ancilliary documents. The Court further notes the Bord's clear
undertaking, given unconditionally to the fitters concerned, that
there would be no compulsory redundancy as a result of the
proposed changes and for these reasons it does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Claim (2) "After Hours" - Clause 40
10. In the light of the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the "after hours" terms in Clause 40 are being
interpreted properly by the Company and the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91656 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13624
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD GAIS EIREANN (SOUTHERN REGION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of the Company/Union
Agreement in relation to:
(1) Use of contractors - customer service operations - Clause
15.
(2) Interpretation of "after hours customer service" - Clause
40.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The workers involved in the dispute are fitters based in Cork.
The claims were discussed at local level without agreement and
were subsequently referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held
on the 12th September, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The
issues were referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on 31st January, 1992. The Court investigated the
dispute in Cork on the 25th March, 1992.
Claim (1) Use of contractors in customer service operations:
BACKGROUND:
3. In September, 1990 the Company and Union signed a procedural
agreement covering a wide range of operational issues. Clause 15
of the agreement provides for the use of contractors in relation
to the customer services area - a dispute has arisen relating to
the interpretation of Clause 15. The Company claims that Clause
15 gives Management the right to use contractors in customer
related services wherever and whenever the need arises. The Union
claims that Management had given assurances that all work on gas
leaks, meter work, and at least 50% of commissioning work would be
undertaken solely by Company fitters and not contractors.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS;
4. 1. The procedural agreement negotiations were protracted and
took place against a background of a potentially long
industrial dispute. The key issue for the Union was the risk
to continuing employment for the Company's fitters, brought
about by the proliferation of smaller companies doing
installation and service work more competitively than the
Company. Management, at local discussions and conciliation,
gave an undertaking to the Union that all work on gas leaks,
meters, and 50% of commissioning work would be done by
fitters. On the basis of management's undertaking an
industrial dispute was averted.
2. The Company has reneged on its commitment and work on
leaks, meters and commissioning has been given out to
contractors thereby jeopardising the continuing employment of
fitters. The Company gave an undertaking to the Union on the
allocation of this work, but Management now denies that any
undertakings were given. It must be emphasised that the
Company's commitment on the allocation of work was the basis
for signing the procedural agreement. The fitters must be
allocated the work as agreed as otherwise their jobs will
disappear. They are presently being deskilled by not having
access to installing, commissioning and servicing the very
large and new sophisticated gas appliances currently on the
market.
3. Five fitters have already left the Company's employment on
a voluntary service package. This has been necessary because
service calls have fallen by 40% in the past two years with a
consequential reduction of work for fitters. The Company no
longer stocks spares and consequently service work normally
done by fitters, is now being undertaken by other agencies.
The Union is prepared to accept the Company's use of
contractors as long as they do not pose a threat to the jobs
of the workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Clause 15 of the Procedural Agreement states:
"It will be necessary to engage contractors and other
external agencies for the ongoing development and
efficient operation of the Company. Contractors will
be used as required by the Company. The Company's
contract documentation will include a stipulation that
the contractors' workers are accredited members of an
appropriate trade union".
2. In return for the Agreement workers obtained a new and
substantially enhanced superannuation scheme, the benefits of
any new such scheme would normally apply to service from date
of introduction. However, as a result of the Agreement on the
use of contractors, as reflected in Clause 15, the Company
agreed to recognise all past service in the Cork Gas Pension
Scheme for pension benefit purposes. The substantial cost was
borne in full by the Company in the context of this Agreement.
3. As was agreed, (and written into the Agreement), the
Company issued a letter to each worker (details supplied to
the Court) stating that there would be no compulsory
redundancies in the Company as a result of the increased and
extended use of contractors. The experience of the past
eighteen months, since the Agreement was implemented, supports
the Company's claim that jobs are not being threatened. The
Company never agreed to a dilution of the provisions of Clause
15 as stated by the Union. The Company needs contractors in
order to meet workload demands and customer requirements.
Claim (2) Interpretation of "after hours" - Clause 40
BACKGROUND:
6. Clause 40 of the Procedural Agreement relates to emergency
cover provided by fitters outside normal hours. The Union
interprets this as referring to night duty i.e. from 9.00 p.m.
The Company claims that "after hours" means from normal finishing
time i.e. 5.00 p.m. Monday to Thursday and 4.00 p.m. on Friday.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. At the present time and for some years past normal cover
after 5 p.m. is provided by three fitters on rapid response.
This cover is an extension of the three individual fitters'
day work. It goes on until 9.00 p.m. when two night duty
fitters come on duty and work until 8.30 a.m. This system has
worked well over the years and has provided fitters who are
ready to respond from night duty quarters on the Company
premises. Those fitters on nights did not work days. The
Company's proposal is that having completed a day's work one
fitter would be on call from his home for seven consecutive
nights. The Union has strong reservations on safety grounds
about such a system. The Agreement states "Fitters on a rota
system will be called from home". This clearly means that
"after hours" means the night duty only, when a fitter is at
home.
2. As the Agreement does not define the hours involved nor
mention the 5.00 p.m. or 9.00 p.m. period the Union had no
indication as to what was intended, and certainly would not
have agreed normal finishing time of 5.00 p.m. Apart from
safety and practical considerations the Company's
interpretation would discontinue the overtime payments for the
5.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. rapid response team. It was not
understood that this was intended and the Union did not agree
to it. The only agreement made on "after hours" duty is
purely in relation to night duty.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Clause 40 of the Agreement provides for the transfer of
the "after hours" emergency system to grid control centre,
Little Island and provides that fitters on a rota system will
be called from home. Appropriate on-call allowances would be
paid. Any loss of earnings arising as a result of the change
would be met by the Company. The agreement clearly states
that all after hours emergency systems will transfer. Clause
37 of the Agreement defines normal working hours as 8.30 a.m.
to 5.00 p.m. Monday to Thursday and 8.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on
Friday. Clearly, hours outside the basic working week are
"after hours".
2. In the distribution department, a rota system is in place
which provides for "after hours" emergency cover by
distribution staff from home, as was agreed for fitters. This
rota system covers all hours outside the basic working week,
and carries the same amount of remuneration and conditions as
was agreed for fitters. The two systems are similar in their
method of operation and remuneration for the same level of
availability. The Company has a consistent approach in
support of its case.
3. The Company's explanatory document (details supplied to
the Court) clearly outlines the Company's intentions in
relation to transfer of the emergency system and how it would
operate. The document which issued to the Union during
negotiations and again in conjunction with the procedural
Agreement at implementation stage stipulates "outside normal
working time, (9.00 a.m. - 5.00 p.m.). There was no ambiguity
with regard to "after hours", and it was quite clear that the
transfer of the emergency system, with fitters responding from
home, would apply to all hours outside the basic working week.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Claim (1) Use of Contractors:
The Court is satisfied that the contention by the Union that the
terms of the Agreement were informally modified in the manner
stated, arose from a misunderstanding particularly in the light of
the intentions clearly stated by the Bord in the Agreement and all
ancilliary documents. The Court further notes the Bord's clear
undertaking, given unconditionally to the fitters concerned, that
there would be no compulsory redundancy as a result of the
proposed changes and for these reasons it does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Claim (2) "After Hours" - Clause 40
10. In the light of the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the "after hours" terms in Clause 40 are being
interpreted properly by the Company and the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
14th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.