Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93242 Case Number: LCR14071 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the retention of an existing "standing-up" arrangement.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court would concur with the Corporation's assertion that the
long established practice of automatic "standing up" to replace
absent immediate supervisors is no longer necessary and unduly
wasteful. It also accepts that the terms proposed by the Unions
in return for an agreement incorporating the particular issue are
not at the present time affordable by the Corporation. However
the Court does consider that insofar as abolition of the system
will result in losses to many members of the Group that payment of
compensation for such losses should be made. Insofar as no
negotiations along these particular lines have as yet taken place
the Court recommends that the parties begin discussions to
ascertain what lump sum compensatory payments would be warranted
on termination of the practice.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93242 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14071
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the retention of an existing "standing-up"
arrangement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Corporation proposed a restructuring of the maintenance
area in Stanley Street (necessitated by the serious financial
difficulties it has experienced over the past number of years).
The revised structure provided for a reduction in the number of
foremen from three to two and assistant foremen from seven to two.
The number of fitters, at 26, would remain unchanged. The
supernumerary foremen and assistant foreman would retain their
rate and status on a personal basis. In addition it was proposed
to do away with the present standing-up arrangement whereby when
an assistant foreman is absent he is replaced by a fitter from a
panel.
3. The Unions objected to the proposed restructuring on the basis
that it was inadequate for the needs of the maintenance area and
that it adversely affected the workers promotion opportunities and
earnings. The Unions acknowledged that changes were required and
indicated their willingness to enter into discussions on same.
4. A number of meetings were held between the parties during the
course of which the Corporation modified its position to allow for
4 assistant foremen. The Unions proposed that, in return for
greater flexibility and multi-skilling, the Corporation should
offer the chargehand differential (7.50%) to all fitters. The
Corporation rejected the Unions' proposal on the grounds that it
was in breach of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.) and because of its repercussive effects. The Unions
then indicated that it was willing to consider a buy-out
arrangement as an alternative. This was also unacceptable to the
Corporation.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 4th March, 1993. As no
agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent of the
parties referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 1st April,
1993 for investigation and recommendation under the Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing
took place on 21st April, 1993.
6. Following the conciliation conference the Corporation notified
the Unions on 11th March, 1993 that the standing-up arrangement
would cease with effect from 22nd March, 1993. The Unions
subsequently served notice of industrial action on the
Corporation. The parties then agreed to revert to the status quo
pending the outcome of the Labour Court investigation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Corporation are seeking to amend current agreements
without negotiation which is unacceptable to the Unions.
2. The Corporation has costed the present standing-up
arrangement at #121,000 per annum. The Unions' proposal of
applying the chargehand differential of 7.50% to the fitters in
return for greater flexibility and multi-skilling would save
the Corporation #96,000 per annum in addition to savings from
work currently performed by contractors. It would also lead
to a more cost efficient service (details supplied to the
Court).
3. The Corporation's proposal to discontinue the standing-up
arrangement (which has formed part of a long standing
agreement) without any compensation is unreasonable as the
workers will suffer a loss in earnings and promotion
opportunities.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Corporation has been operating under severe financial
constraints for the past number of years and has to constantly
review its operations in order to maintain services in the
most cost efficient manner.
2. The staffing levels in the maintenance section has reduced
considerably. Consequently, there is no need for the level of
supervision which currently exists (details supplied to the
Court).
3. The present standing-up arrangement is unnecessary and
costly.
4. The Unions proposals would be of very little benefit to
the Corporation for a number of years in view of the current
number of assistant foremen deployed to the section.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court would concur with the Corporation's assertion that the
long established practice of automatic "standing up" to replace
absent immediate supervisors is no longer necessary and unduly
wasteful. It also accepts that the terms proposed by the Unions
in return for an agreement incorporating the particular issue are
not at the present time affordable by the Corporation. However
the Court does consider that insofar as abolition of the system
will result in losses to many members of the Group that payment of
compensation for such losses should be made. Insofar as no
negotiations along these particular lines have as yet taken place
the Court recommends that the parties begin discussions to
ascertain what lump sum compensatory payments would be warranted
on termination of the practice.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
7th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.