Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93346 Case Number: LCR14125 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING UNION |
A dispute concerning the introduction of an Autonomous Enterprise Unit in Bangor-Erris.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions is cognisant of
the reservations of the workers concerned regarding certain
aspects of the operation of the AEU's and their consequent
reluctance at this location to opt for employment in the unit.
The Court notes that the operation of the AEU's is currently under
review by the parties. The Court is also cognisant of the
situation of the Company's need to operate as efficiently and cost
effectively as possible.
In all the circumstances the Court finds that the Company approach
to the establishment of the AEU at this location was not contrary
to the agreement between the parties.
To achieve the objectives of both parties and in particular to
ensure continuity of employment the Court recommends.
1. That the employees and the Company establish the AEU as
soon as possible.
2. That the parties complete the review of the operation of
the AEU's and make such changes in their operation as
are considered necessary and which will achieve the
objectives of all concerned.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93346 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14125
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the introduction of an Autonomous
Enterprise Unit in Bangor-Erris.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In September, 1988, the Company entered into negotiations
with the Bord na Mona Group of Unions on a programme of
change. The negotiations culminated in April, 1989 in an
agreed framework (New Partnership for Progress Framework) and
a programme was put in place for 1989 to establish units based
on both Management's proposals (Employee Enterprise Units) and
Union proposals (direct labour based autonomous groups), for
an experimental period of one year. In 1990, a third scheme,
which is a direct labour based scheme, called an Autonomous
Enterprise Unit (AEU) was agreed and introduced.
2. In January, 1993, the Company informed workers in
Bangor-Erris that an Autonomous Enterprise Unit was being
introduced into Section 5 of that works. The workers informed
Management of their reservations regarding certain aspects of
the operation of the AEU's and their consequent reluctance at
this location to opt for employment in the Unit. On 15th
April, 1993 the Company notified four workers that they were
being nominated as Team leaders to the AEU. Protective notice
was also issued to workers in Section 5, Bangor-Erris.
3. The Union maintains that the naming of the four workers
as Team Leaders and the issuing of protective notice is
contrary to the voluntary option element under Clause 9,
Autonomous Enterprise Units Framework Agreement:-
"Existing employees in the Autonomous Enterprise
Unit areas who do not opt to work in the Units
will be relocated subject to local discussions".
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the
27th May, 1993. Agreement could not be reached and the
dispute was referred by the Labour Relations Commission to the
Labour Court on the 3rd June, 1993. The Court investigated
the issue on the 11th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since the introduction of Autonomous Group and
Enterprise Units into Bord na Mona from 1989, membership of
the new work systems has been strictly on a voluntary basis,
and where individuals opted out of joining a unit being
established in their area of employment, they have been
facilitated by being located to an alternative work area, in
accordance with Clause 9 of the Autonomous Enterprise Units
Framework Agreement.
2. The reluctance on the part of the Bangor-Erris workers
to participate in a Unit is influenced by problems which have
arisen in the AEU system in the past two years and the poor
earnings achieved by Unit members in the Peat Energy Division
in 1992.
3. The workers will participate in a Unit following the
Joint Working party review of the problems and if adequate
solutions emerge.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The costs associated with the traditional system of
production in Section 5, Bangor-Erris are too high and cannot
be allowed to continue.
2. The level and type of change sought is no different to
that achieved to date throughout the Company's production
operations in general.
3. The introduction of an AEU in Section 5 will not result
in the displacement of any employee from the Bangor area who
wishes to remain in employment.
4. The resistance to agreed change in Section 5 could put
in jeopardy the change achieved to date throughout the Company
and the change still required.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions is cognisant of
the reservations of the workers concerned regarding certain
aspects of the operation of the AEU's and their consequent
reluctance at this location to opt for employment in the unit.
The Court notes that the operation of the AEU's is currently under
review by the parties. The Court is also cognisant of the
situation of the Company's need to operate as efficiently and cost
effectively as possible.
In all the circumstances the Court finds that the Company approach
to the establishment of the AEU at this location was not contrary
to the agreement between the parties.
To achieve the objectives of both parties and in particular to
ensure continuity of employment the Court recommends.
1. That the employees and the Company establish the AEU as
soon as possible.
2. That the parties complete the review of the operation of
the AEU's and make such changes in their operation as
are considered necessary and which will achieve the
objectives of all concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
5th July, 1993 -------------
P O'C/U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.