Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9347 Case Number: LCR13951 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: G. & T. CRAMPTON - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A claim that the use of sub-contractors is contrary to the terms of a Company/Union agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions.
The Court is fully cognisant of the current practices in regard to
construction industry contracts and recognises the need for
competitiveness.
Notwithstanding these constraints there is an obligation on
employers to adhere to agreements.
In this case the Court finds the Company have unilaterally
breached the agreement in respect of the employment of
sub-contractors.
The Court recommends that, in discussion with the union, the
Company make arrangements to conform with the terms of the
agreement.
The Court further recommends that should the Company wish to alter
the provisions of the agreement this should be done as provided
under it's terms by consultation and agreement with the union
through the normal industrial relations procedures.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9347 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13951
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: G. & T. CRAMPTON
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim that the use of sub-contractors is contrary to the
terms of a Company/Union agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is one of the largest and oldest established
building contracting companies in the State. The dispute
arose following the lay-off of three painters and the
Company's subsequent sub-contracting of work involving
painters. The Union alleges that the Company is in breach of
a 1985 Company/Union Agreement.
The Company rejected this claim and the matter was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference took place on the 11th January, 1993. Agreement
could not be reached and the Labour Relations Commission
referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 15th January,
1993. The Court investigated the matter on the 1st February,
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is prepared to agree to the use of
sub-contractors provided that the firms engaged comply with
the conditions for the engagement of sub-contractors set out
in the Registered Agreement for the industry, and their
engagement does not adversely affect the employment of the
direct labour force.
2. The Union opposes the use of sub-contractors in the
present case, because it will have the effect of continuing
the lay off of the directly employed workforce.
3. There is no justifiable reason as to why the painters
employed directly by the Company cannot be used in the
carrying out of some, if not all, of the contracts on which
the company is presently engaged.
4. Clause 4 of the Agreement sets out a commitment that the
Company will not engage sub-contractors for painting work
without consultation and agreement with the Union.
5. The agreement was freely entered into by the Company,
through the Construction Industry Federation, and it terms
must be honoured. It is contrary to all known good
industrial relations practices for an employer to abrogate an
agreement by which it voluntarily agreed to be bound.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's competitors are not restrained in any way
in relation to the engagement of painting sub-contractors,
thereby giving them an unfair advantage.
2. The employment of painters directly is not cost
effective.
3. There is no continuous work available to painters
working directly for the Company.
4. The use of legitimate sub-contractors is the most cost
effective method of operation.
5. Without the right to engage painting sub-contractors the
Company's marketing position would continue to deteriorate to
the detriment of its remaining labour force.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions.
The Court is fully cognisant of the current practices in regard to
construction industry contracts and recognises the need for
competitiveness.
Notwithstanding these constraints there is an obligation on
employers to adhere to agreements.
In this case the Court finds the Company have unilaterally
breached the agreement in respect of the employment of
sub-contractors.
The Court recommends that, in discussion with the union, the
Company make arrangements to conform with the terms of the
agreement.
The Court further recommends that should the Company wish to alter
the provisions of the agreement this should be done as provided
under it's terms by consultation and agreement with the union
through the normal industrial relations procedures.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________
9th February, 1993. Deputy Chairman
P.O'C/M.H.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.