Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92576 Case Number: LCR13813 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: G.E. SUPERABRASIVES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the provision of protective clothing.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the details of local negotiations the Court is of the view that
the Union's position is valid and accordingly recommends
concession of the claim that the Company issue vouchers to the
value of #200 to cover a sixteen-month period to the employees
concerned.
With regard to the tax issue raised by the Company the Court
considers it can only take into account existing tax provisions.
It accepts that new tax regulations may be introduced at any stage
in the future and, therefore, recommends that in the event of the
introduction of new tax provisions affecting the issue of vouchers
as outlined above both parties agree to meet to discuss and
negotiate on their implications for either party.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92576 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13813
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: G.E. SUPERABRASIVES LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the provision of protective clothing.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of General Electric, a multinational
corporation based in Ohio. Its Irish operation is based in
Clonshaugh, Dublin and employs approximately 400 people in the
production of industrial diamonds.
3. Industrial issues are dealt with by an Industrial Relations
Committee comprising of representatives of the workforce and
management. One of the items discussed at a number of Committee
meetings was the method of providing protective clothing. Under
present arrangements another Company, under contract, provides,
cleans and repairs protective clothing on an ongoing basis. The
workforce regard this arrangement as unsatisfactory
4. Following Committee meetings held on 30th April, 1992 and 8th
May, 1992, according to the minutes of the meetings, (details of
which were supplied to the Court) agreement was reached whereby
vouchers to the value of #200 would be provided to workers,
covering a period of 16 months and allowing them to buy their own
overalls at selected outlets. The cleaning and maintenance of the
overalls would be the responsibility of the individuals.
5. Subsequently the Union sought the implementation of the
revised arrangements. The Company responded that these
arrangements were uneconomical and its position throughout the
discussions had been that any revised arrangements were subject to
costings and ratification by senior management. According to the
Company, this statement had been omitted from the minutes by
error.
6. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
14th July, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on 15th July,
1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with the
consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took place on 8th
October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Industrial Relations Committee is an important part of
the industrial relations machinery. To renege on a decision
made by the Committee would undermine its effectiveness and
authority.
2. The Company's assertion that agreement by the Committee is
subject to ratification by senior management is inconsistent
with the history of the workings of the Committee.
3. The Company had ample opportunity to amend the minutes as
draft copies are circulated to all parties before signing.
4. The Company's concern about benefit in kind tax does not
make sense as any such tax would affect the worker and not the
employer. The provision of overalls, by whatever method, for
exclusive use in work would not attract tax liability.
5. Under the codes of good industrial relations practice the
Company is bound to honour the agreement reached.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. At all times during discussions on the method of providing
overalls it was made clear that any final decision would be
subject to ratification by senior management. Its omission
from the minutes due to an oversight is regrettable. However
it cannot be used to implement an arrangement which would
significantly increase costs (the proposed arrangement would
triple present costs).
2. The workers will continue to enjoy a high level of service
with regard to protective clothing and will suffer no loss of
benefit.
3. The Company/Union House Agreement prohibits any
cost-increasing claims.
4. The Company entered into discussions prior to
announcements made in the last Budget. The Company is
seriously concerned that the introduction of a fringe benefit
tax would apply to the new proposed arrangement.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the details of local negotiations the Court is of the view that
the Union's position is valid and accordingly recommends
concession of the claim that the Company issue vouchers to the
value of #200 to cover a sixteen-month period to the employees
concerned.
With regard to the tax issue raised by the Company the Court
considers it can only take into account existing tax provisions.
It accepts that new tax regulations may be introduced at any stage
in the future and, therefore, recommends that in the event of the
introduction of new tax provisions affecting the issue of vouchers
as outlined above both parties agree to meet to discuss and
negotiate on their implications for either party.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
27th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.