Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92781 Case Number: LCR13978 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MELCHERT ELECTRONICS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning interpretation of an Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court appreciates that the parties to this dispute are
aware of the difficulties facing the Company. The Court is also
conscious of the difficulties and concerned that the seeming
detioriation in industrial relations may exacerbate the position.
The Court accordingly urges the parties to accept the following
recommendation:
(a) The Company and Union Industrial Engineers carry out a study
of the drilling area as a matter of urgency.
(b) In accordance with the spirit of Clause 4 of the November,
1992 Agreement the Union agree to multi-machine manning in the
drilling area for long cycle runs pending the outcome of (a)
above.
(c) Pending the outcome of the Industrial Engineers' report the
Company desist from changing the numbers on each shift.
(d) When the Industrial Engineers' report is received both parties
meet to discuss and agree the ways and means of implementing
the proposals contained therein.
(e) The Court anticipates that matters should be finalised not
later than 30th April, 1993.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92781 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13978
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MELCHERT ELECTRONICS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning interpretation of an Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of printed
circuit boards for the domestic and export market. It employs
120 workers. Due to a downturn in its markets, the Company
has experienced severe financial difficulties over the last 3
years. Its financial difficulties were worsened in 1992, when
the parent Company was unable to subsidise its losses.
2. The Company was unable to secure alternative financing and
cost-cutting measures were proposed including a requirement
for 25 redundancies. Negotiations took place under the
auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on 13th November, 1992. An Agreement was
reached which essentially dealt with the provision of a
redundancy settlement for the 25 workers. The settlement was
to be self-financing. The proposals were forwarded to the
parties by the Industrial Relations Officer, by letter dated
13th November, 1992 (details supplied) and were accepted.
3. Clause 4 of the Agreement stated as follows:
"That both sides agree to full interchangeability and
flexibility in the plant".
A problem of interpretation of this Clause subsequently arose.
The Company's understanding was that the Clause committed the
Union to agreement on one man/two machines where possible in
the drilling departments, as well as various other
flexibilities. The Company sought to implement one
man/two machines for specific work in the drilling department.
The Union refused to implement the change and the work was
sub-contracted to a firm in the United Kingdom.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a further conciliation conference was held on
16th December, 1992. A negotiated settlement was not possible
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 17th
December, 1992 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation took place in
Killarney on 17th February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue of one man/two machines in the drilling
department was first raised by the Company in 1985 and despite
a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, no further
negotiations took place until 1992. A Comprehensive Agreement
on redundancy was agreed in 1992. It is unfortunate that the
Company misunderstood the Clause on flexibility and
interchangeability. The Union has always understood that the
issue of one man/two machines would be dealt with under Clause
5 of the Agreement which dealt with the appointment of
industrial engineers.
2. The workers are fully aware of the Company's difficulties
and those in the drilling department have co-operated with the
flexibility and interchangeability (details supplied). The
resolution of the one man/two machines issue has not been
assisted by the difficulties in securing meetings with the
Company and the sub-contracting out of the work of the
drilling department (details supplied).
3. Clause 5 of the Agreement provides a basis for the
resolution of the dispute (appointing of Industrial Engineer
to examine work practices and procedures). The Union agreed
to the appointment of an industrial engineer to examine work
practices and procedures in the plant. The Union also agreed
that workers would co-operate and implement fully any changes
arising. This would be subject to the Union's industrial
engineer reviewing/agreeing any recommendation that the
Company's engineer may make.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An Agreement was reached with the Union that 25 workers
would be made redundant, with self-financing settlement terms.
A key element of the Agreement was Clause 4, which dealt with
flexibility and interchangeability. The Union confirmed to
the Industrial Relations Officer that the Clause included the
issue of one man/two machines in the drilling department. The
Union refused to fulfill this agreement, forcing the Company
to sub-contract work. The Union's action is jeopardising the
funding of the redundancy programme.
2. The workers have already proved that the concept of one
man/two machines is possible for specific jobs (details
supplied). In these circumstances an industrial engineer's
report is not necessary. The Company has engaged an
industrial engineer and his report may identify further
efficiency improvements. There was no question of the Company
awaiting the engineer's report before implementing the agreed
one man/two machines in the drilling department.
3. The Company has serious financial difficulties, a fact
which is acknowledged by the Union. The short-term outlook is
not good and the Union's decision in relation to the drilling
department has not allowed the Company to find the ex-gratia
payments for the redundancy programme. The ability of the
Company to make these payments is in serious doubt.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court appreciates that the parties to this dispute are
aware of the difficulties facing the Company. The Court is also
conscious of the difficulties and concerned that the seeming
detioriation in industrial relations may exacerbate the position.
The Court accordingly urges the parties to accept the following
recommendation:
(a) The Company and Union Industrial Engineers carry out a study
of the drilling area as a matter of urgency.
(b) In accordance with the spirit of Clause 4 of the November,
1992 Agreement the Union agree to multi-machine manning in the
drilling area for long cycle runs pending the outcome of (a)
above.
(c) Pending the outcome of the Industrial Engineers' report the
Company desist from changing the numbers on each shift.
(d) When the Industrial Engineers' report is received both parties
meet to discuss and agree the ways and means of implementing
the proposals contained therein.
(e) The Court anticipates that matters should be finalised not
later than 30th April, 1993.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
22nd March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.