Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92387 Case Number: LCR13739 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NESTLE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION |
A dispute regarding the interpretation of a productivity agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
believes that the production requirements of the Company will
demand the attendance of production maintenance personnel and in
this context staggered holiday arrangements are inappropriate.
Because the obligation to take holidays in the shut-down period
was not clearly set down in the productivity agreement, the Court
recommends that the status quo continue for this holiday year and
from 1993 onwards the maintenance workers come into line with
production workers.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92387 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13739
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: NESTLE (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding the interpretation of a productivity
agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company completed a productivity agreement with the
Union in 1991. The agreement involved new work standards,
manning levels, a redundancy/early retirement package and the
protection of loss of overtime. The numbers of workers in the
maintenance department were reduced from 15 to 11 workers.
2. Clause 12 of the agreement states:-
"PRACTICES/AGREEMENTS:
There are many labour practices/"agreements" which seem
to have become part of the "normal" operation in the
Tallaght business. Such practices/"agreements" range
from being irritating and counter productive to very
damaging to the well being of the business.
The Company's intention for the future is that it will
no longer accept any practice which has the effect of
causing damage to the business and that all employees
should carry out legitimate/lawful instructions. If
such instructions are considered unreasonable the
employee should, nevertheless, carry out such
instructions and then protest as per the grievance
procedure, to have their grievance addressed.
In the event of any instruction having the effect of
causing loss of earnings which is beyond the control of
the employee then this should be raised with management
as per the grievance procedure".
3. Under the terms of Clause 12, the Company is seeking to
change the holiday arrangements of the craftworkers from the
present situation where they take holidays outside the
shutdown periods (1 week June, 2 weeks August) to a situation
where they will have to take holidays during shutdown. The
Union has rejected the proposal claiming that it did not form
any part of the changed conditions under the productivity
agreement.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 10th
June, 1992. No progress was achieved at conciliation and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on 7th July, 1992 in accordance with 26(1) etc.
A Labour Court investigation took place on 28th July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not, at any stage, during the negotiations
on the productivity agreement bring up the prospect of
altering the traditional holiday arrangements of these
workers. It is the Union's clear understanding that Clause 12
is to cover small issues. It was never intended that the
Company was to have carte blanche to introduce changes.
2. The Union rejects the Company's attempt to use Clause 12
as a basis for introducing the alteration. The important
issue of holidays was not introduced prior to, during or for a
substantial period of time after the conclusion of
negotiations on the agreement. The Company is trying to force
the workers to take holidays during the shut-down periods
while requiring the use of outside contractors to carry out
maintenance work. This is entirely unacceptable to the Union
as a matter of policy.
3. The freedom to take holidays outside the shut-down periods
gives the workers a facility which is enjoyed by the majority
of their colleagues in public and private employments. It
affords the workers a choice of holiday packages over a much
longer period. In any case, holidays are taken by the workers
by mutual consent. This practice has operated without
difficulty for many years, including the current year.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The productivity agreement was freely negotiated by the
Unions. Significant benefits were achieved for the workers
(details supplied). The issue of holidays was discussed on
numerous occasions and, the change is appropriate to the
spirit of Clause 12 in maintaining work standards.
2. Each year the factory closes for 3 weeks when all
production workers are on holiday. The maintenance workers
are part of the production team and without production there
would be no requirement for maintenance workers. The workers
are not replaceable as they have specialised skills acquired
over the years, which are not available from contract workers.
The Company would not be unsympathetic to a worker who had a
special requirement to use annual leave outside of the normal
shutdown periods.
3. The rationalisation process which led to the productivity
agreement resulted in maintenance worker levels being reduced
from 15 to 11. The new level does not allow the Company the
same latitude in varying holiday times. The Company's request
is reasonable and it would be unreasonable to expect any
company to recruit additional workers in order to facilitate
holidays.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
believes that the production requirements of the Company will
demand the attendance of production maintenance personnel and in
this context staggered holiday arrangements are inappropriate.
Because the obligation to take holidays in the shut-down period
was not clearly set down in the productivity agreement, the Court
recommends that the status quo continue for this holiday year and
from 1993 onwards the maintenance workers come into line with
production workers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
21st August, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.