Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92434 Case Number: LCR13787 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH INDUSTRIAL GASES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
An objection to the use of contractors by the Company for the scrapping of cylinders as part of the Company's cylinder replacement programme.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that work at issue could not be done safely or
satisfactorily without a severe disruption of the normal
production process and therefore the use of contractors is fully
justified. Having regard to this and to the fact that none of the
staff concerned are suffering any loss the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92434 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13787
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH INDUSTRIAL GASES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. An objection to the use of contractors by the Company for the
scrapping of cylinders as part of the Company's cylinder
replacement programme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 150 workers, of whom 51 are
represented by the Union. The claim for investigation is on
behalf of 14 workers in site services and 4 workers in the
cylinder test shop. In the normal course some cylinders are
regularly taken out of the active population to be scrapped.
This is done on overtime by the site service workers with the
assistance of the workers in the cylinder test shop (details
supplied). The average annual amount which require to be
scrapped is 100/150 cylinders.
2. The Company is at present involved in a cylinder
replacement programme which involves the scrapping of circa
18,000 cylinders. In February, 1992 the Company appointed a
contractor to carry out the work. The first phase of the
replacement programme was to involve circa 6,000 cylinders.
The Union objected on the basis that the work was proper to
its members and should be done on overtime. At a Labour
Relations Commission conciliation conference on 2nd March,
1992 it was agreed that the Company could engage contractors
on condition that the Company would consult with S.I.P.T.U.
No. 1 on the handling of work where S.I.P.T.U. No. 1 has an
interest.
3. The Company subsequently indicated its intention to engage
contractors to remove a further batch of cylinders but the
Union objected on the basis that it was a breach of the
undertaking in regard to consultation given in March.
4. The dispute was again referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 9th July,
1992. No progress was possible and the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on 23rd July, 1992. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 2nd October, 1992 (the earliest
date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's clear understanding of the March agreement was
that the use of contractors applied to the 6,000 cylinders to
be disposed of at that time. The agreement reached specified
that the Company should consult with the Union on work proper
to its members. The Company did not consult with the Union
but merely passed information. In fact the Company engaged a
contractor to remove 1,500 cylinders on Sunday August 23rd
prior to the Labour Court investigation. The Union had
requested the Company to leave the cylinders pending the
outcome of the Court's investigation.
2. The Union knows that the Company has deliberately allowed
a large batch of cylinders to build up rather than honour its
agreement on consultation and have the cylinders scrapped on
an ongoing basis. The traditional method of scrapping
cylinders should now apply. It should cover the build up of
some 3,000 cylinders and the balance of the 18,000. The
immediate cost of the claim would be 80 hours overtime which
should be shared among the 14 workers involved. The Union is
not opposed to the use of contractors provided they do not
constitute a challenge to the workers' full-time employment or
their potential earning capacity.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement entered into in March, 1992 applied to the
entire replacement programme. Any other interpretation would
not make sense in the light of the Company's #3m investment in
1990/91 to upgrade its cylinder filling facilities to achieve
higher pressure cylinder filling. The number of cylinders
involved is 18,000 and their safe and proper disposal is not
within the capacity of present manning levels (details
supplied). The disposal of so many cylinders at any one time
has not occurred in the history of the Company.
2. The permanent manning level within site services has never
and will never be capable of coping with the forklift truck
activities associated with scrapping large numbers of
cylinders. The Company has fully honoured its commitment to
consult with the Union and it will continue to do so. The
engagement of a contractor by the Company does not interfere
with the employment or earnings of the workers concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that work at issue could not be done safely or
satisfactorily without a severe disruption of the normal
production process and therefore the use of contractors is fully
justified. Having regard to this and to the fact that none of the
staff concerned are suffering any loss the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
12th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.