Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93318 Case Number: LCR14146 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning an interpretation of an Agreement
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions and taking into account the
verbal submissions, the Court is satisfied that the Company's
interpretation of the Agreement is correct and accordingly the
Court upholds the Company's position.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93318 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14146
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an interpretation of an Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In September, 1992, a Production Development Plan (PDP)
was agreed between the Company and the Union following several
months of negotiations. The workers received the 3% increase
provided for under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
2. Shortly after the implementation of the Agreement, the
Union claimed that the terms of the PDP applied only to Monday
- Friday working and that the issue of weekend working was not
covered. The Union claimed that the Company had not envisaged
a situation where Saturday overtime would be required. It was
prepared to negotiate on the issue.
3. The Company rejected the Union's claim and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 6th April, 1993. The Company claimed
that the PDP was agreed and paid for as a 7 day agreement.
The Union did not alter its position and no progress was
possible. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
24th May, 1993 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation took place on 1st
July, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The PDP is a comprehensive and detailed document which
does not at any stage refer to any change in weekend overtime
arrangements. The PDP covered all aspects of working
conditions including pay and the 30 page document was accepted
by the workers through ballot. The Union was not opposed at
any time to discussing the issue of weekend working but the
issue never arose during negotiations.
2. The Agreement does not include the issue of weekend
overtime and the conditions attached to the PDP do not apply
to it. The PDP was accepted in good faith by the workers and
they have delivered on their commitments. The Company had its
opportunity to negotiate changes in weekend overtime but it
chose not to do so. The Union is adamant that any changes now
sought must be negotiated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The PDP was agreed in September, 1992 after 9 months
detailed negotiations. It operated as negotiated for a number
of months afterwards. It was not until January, 1993 that the
Union withdrew co-operation from the agreed weekend terms.
The Union's claim would re-impose #26,000 costs per annum.
2. The Agreement was negotiated in the context of all hours
worked in the week. This was clear to both parties. Any
costs which were discussed related to total costs over a 7 day
week. The issue of week-end overtime was discussed on
numerous occasions in the course of the negotiations (details
supplied). At no stage did the Union indicate that such
week-end work was excluded from the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions and taking into account the
verbal submissions, the Court is satisfied that the Company's
interpretation of the Agreement is correct and accordingly the
Court upholds the Company's position.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
22nd July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.