Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93371 Case Number: LCR14189 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: FUJITSU MIRCOELECTRONICS IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Interpretation of Clause 5.4(e) of the Company/Union Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing. Having regard to the
purpose of the meeting in Brussels and the absence of any
agreement between the Union and Employer on the question of a
European Works Council, the Court does not consider that the
meeting can reasonably be regarded as falling within the terms of
clause 5.4 (e) of the Company/Union agreement. Accordingly the
Court recommends that the Union accept that the Company was not
liable for the salary of the shop-stewards while they were
attending the meeting. The Court notes that it is not the
intention of the Company to recoup the salary which was paid in
this instance.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93371 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14189
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: FUJITSU MIRCOELECTRONICS IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Irish Business Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of Clause 5.4(e) of the Company/Union
Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Fujitsu Group,
Japan and is involved in the production of integrated circuits for
export to the computer and telecommunications industry.
The Union represents approximately 176 workers who are employed in
operative, technical, administrative and supervisory positions.
The workers are covered by a procedures agreement which provides
for paid leave for shop stewards while attending training courses.
In April, 1993, two workers applied for paid leave to attend a
seminar in Brussels in relation to proposals on the setting up of
a European Works Council. The application was refused. The
Company claims that the seminar was not training.
On 12th May, 1993 local level discussions took place at which the
Company agreed to grant the leave with pay on condition that the
issue regarding the interpretation of Clause 5.4(e) of the
Company/Union agreement be jointly referred to the Labour Court.
On 15th June, 1993 the matter was referred to the Labour Court
under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Both
parties agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The
Court hearing took place on 25th August, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unreasonable for management to refuse paid leave
in the circumstances. Participation at the seminar in
Brussels is educational and falls within the terms of Clause
5.4(e) of the Company/Union agreement.
2. Local Union representatives put in a great deal of time
and effort on behalf of their colleagues which is mutually
beneficial to the Company. There is little of the Company's
time involved except where management initiates discussions.
3. The specific clause in the agreement is there for the
benefit of all concerned. A well trained Union representative
commands respect, is better able to give leadership and often
helps management avoid industrial relations problems.
4. Attendance at the seminar in Brussels gives the
shop-stewards a better understanding of the Company's
operation in Europe and puts the Irish plant in context
vis-a-vis other plants in terms of size and cost
effectiveness.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 5.4 (e) clearly refers to training. The Brussels
event was not a training event and the Company cannot
understand how the event can be construed as training.
2. The Company should not be asked to pay for a Trade Union
briefing for shop-stewards.
3. The Company allows good provision for shop-stewards and
has supported them well. In this instance it requests the
Labour Court to find it was not liable to pay the salary of
the two shop stewards while attending the Brussels conference,
even though it does not seek the return of the payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing. Having regard to the
purpose of the meeting in Brussels and the absence of any
agreement between the Union and Employer on the question of a
European Works Council, the Court does not consider that the
meeting can reasonably be regarded as falling within the terms of
clause 5.4 (e) of the Company/Union agreement. Accordingly the
Court recommends that the Union accept that the Company was not
liable for the salary of the shop-stewards while they were
attending the meeting. The Court notes that it is not the
intention of the Company to recoup the salary which was paid in
this instance.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
9th September, 1993 ___________________________________
F.B./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR FRAN BRENNAN, COURT SECRETARY.