Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93585 Case Number: LCR14256 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ARTHUR GUINNESS SON AND COMPANY (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - THE GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS;OF UNIONS;TEEU |
Dispute concerning two issues:- (i) Restoration of dental benefit, (ii) Intake of apprentices.
Recommendation:
Dental benefit
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not consider that the Unions have established grounds
which would justify a recommendation to alter the existing
medical package in relation to dental benefit. Accordingly,
the Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Apprentice intake
There is no definitive yardstick as to how many apprentices
are appropriate to a particular business and such issues as
the relationship between social, commercial and national
considerations are extremely subjective. While the Court
understands the Unions' aspiration to have the greatest
number possible of apprentices and the widest spread through
the trades, it appears that, in this instance, the offer of
the Company of 4 additional apprentices for 1993 was
reasonable.
The Court notes that this offer, which was made at a
Conciliation Conference, has since been withdrawn but
recommends that it be re-instated and implemented as early as
possible. If necessary, further discussion should take place
on the spread of the 4 over the trades, having regard to the
practicalities of the situation.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93585 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14256
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ARTHUR GUINNESS SON AND COMPANY (DUBLIN) LIMITED
and
THE GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning two issues:-
(i) Restoration of dental benefit,
(ii) Intake of apprentices.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Dental benefit:
In 1988, as part of the Company's Continuous Competitive Plan
(C.C.P.), medical benefits provided to employees were
scaled down. 9,500 people were affected (including the work
population, retired employees and dependants). The Company's
attempt to rationalise the benefits was resisted by the
Skilled Group of Unions. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court and LCR12457 was issued in July, 1989. The
Unions agreed to reductions in some benefits, including
dental benefit.
Subsequent changes in the Social Welfare system meant that
State dental benefits were no longer available to 150 people.
The Unions sought the restoration of dental benefits supplied
by the Company. The Company was unwilling to re-negotiate
its medical benefits system.
2. Apprentice intake
For the duration of the C.C.P., there was an increased number
of apprentices taken on by the Company. At the end of the
C.C.P., the Company reverted to 'normal' intake for
electricians and fitters, with no intake for other crafts.
The Unions object to the drop in the intake numbers of
apprentices and want the numbers restored to the C.C.P.
levels. The Company's position is that, as a commercial
organisation, it must reserve for itself the right to
determine the number and types of apprentices it trains.
The disputes were referred to the Labour Relations Commission
for investigation and a conciliation conference was held on
the 15th of April, 1993, at which agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of
October, 1993, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 12th November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Dental benefit:
(i) At the time of negotiation of the C.C.P., it was the
intention that dental benefit would be removed only from
those who were also covered by either Voluntary Health
Insurance or Social Welfare. The aim was to eliminate
duplication. As the criteria have changed since then,
it is reasonable that the agreement be re-negotiated and
that the benefit be restored to those concerned.
(ii) The Company has refused to restore dental benefits on
the grounds of cost-implications for the medical
benefits package as a whole. This is unreasonable as
profits in the Company have soared in recent years,
mainly as a result of the C.P.P. and Skilled Group
agreements. The Company has also completed an agreement
with another category to increase the numbers receiving
its current medical package.
2. Apprentice Intake:
(i) The Company has one of the worst craftsmen/apprentice
ratios in the country, as follows:-
Number of Craftsmen Number of Apprentices
( excl 'improvers')
Bricklayers 5 0
Boilermakers 11 1
Fitters 57 10
Electricians 46 8
Painters 8 0
Carpenters 2 0
Garage 4 0
Plumbers 9 3
There are no first-year apprentices at all.
(ii) The Company is failing to honour its social and moral
obligation to the people and youth of Ireland. The Company
argues that it is seeking the phasing-out of all craftsmen
except fitters and electricians. The fact remains that
despite various rationalisation plans, the other crafts are
still very much a part of the workforce.
(iii) Commercially, the Company has no justifiable reason for
the reduction of apprentice intake.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Dental Benefit:
(i) The discontinuance of the dentistry services was not
linked to the existence, or otherwise, of State services.
(ii) Their discontinuance was part of the Company's strategy
to enable it to retain a medical service. While the Company
provides a generous medical support system for its employees,
that system cannot be expected to become a substitute for the
Social Welfare system. The Company cannot be expected to
become a provider of last resort, in the event of public
services diminishing.
2. Apprentice Intake
(i) Apprentice intake cannot be isolated from the commercial
environment of the business. Nevertheless, the Company has
maintained its recruitment policy throughout the 1980s when
other major concerns suspended apprentice intake.
(ii) The Company currently employs 28 apprentices at a cost
of in the region of #500,000 per annum.
(iii) Over and above the Company's own apprentices,
approximately 120 additional apprenticeships were generated
during the 1980s. On an ongoing basis, about 20 apprentices
on average are on site receiving training, in addition to the
Company's apprentices.
(iv) Commitment to one apprentice equates to a cost of #80/90
thousand over four years, plus the improver year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Dental benefit
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not consider that the Unions have established grounds
which would justify a recommendation to alter the existing
medical package in relation to dental benefit. Accordingly,
the Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Apprentice intake
There is no definitive yardstick as to how many apprentices
are appropriate to a particular business and such issues as
the relationship between social, commercial and national
considerations are extremely subjective. While the Court
understands the Unions' aspiration to have the greatest
number possible of apprentices and the widest spread through
the trades, it appears that, in this instance, the offer of
the Company of 4 additional apprentices for 1993 was
reasonable.
The Court notes that this offer, which was made at a
Conciliation Conference, has since been withdrawn but
recommends that it be re-instated and implemented as early as
possible. If necessary, further discussion should take place
on the spread of the 4 over the trades, having regard to the
practicalities of the situation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
19th November, 1993 ---------------
M.K./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR MICHAEL KEEGAN, COURT SECRETARY.