Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94345 Case Number: LCR14525 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the contracting out of the Company's transport at Dungarvan.
Recommendation:
Having regard to Clause 2.5 of the 1993 Cost Improvement
Agreement, the Court is satisfied that the Company was entitled to
include the Dungarvan van in its consideration of non-core
activities for contracting out. The Court does not regard the
response to the Union's questions of 26th August, 1992 as altering
this position.
The Court considers that this issue should have been the subject
of fuller discussion with the Union and the reason why it did not
progress beyond the initial advice to the Shop Steward who
signalled that there would be objections is unclear.
As a result, there is a perception that the way the contracting
out was handled by the Company did not offer an opportunity to
various staff to apply for the contact or for the Union to make
adequate representations for the retention of the job in-house.
Such a situation should be avoided in the future but having regard
to the de-facto position in which a contract has been concluded
and also to the general dispersal of transport that has been
agreed, the Court does not find grounds to justify a reversal of
the situation at this stage.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94345 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14525
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the contracting out of the Company's
transport at Dungarvan.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Cost Improvement Agreement dated 4th January, 1993
provided under Clause 2.5 for the contracting out of
non-core activities/services. Transport was one of the
areas mentioned in the Agreement. The Company has
to-date contracted out such non-core activities/services
in the maintenance, canteen, security, cleaning and
transport areas. The Company informed the Union that it
was in the process of contracting out the van transport
for the Dungarvan plant in accordance with the
provisions of Clause 2.5 of the Agreement. The Union
objected to this and contend that the Company, in
answering a number of questions put to it on 26th
August, 1992, during the negotiations of the 1993
Agreement, did not indicate its intention to contract
out this van transport.
2. The dispute was referred by both sides to the Labour
Court under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on 13th
July, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not indicate their intention to contract
out the van transport for the Dungarvan plant during the
negotiations of the 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement.
2. The contract was offered on an individual basis to some
employees and was not advertised within the industry.
3. Management have awarded the contract to a temporary
worker despite the Union's objection.
4. There are many surplus employees within the industry who
have not been given an opportunity to seek the contract.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has a right under Clause 2.5 of the Cost
Improvement Agreement to contract out non-core
activities/services.
2. The Labour Court in LCR 13975 upheld the Company's
entitlement to contract out as agreed under Clause 2.5
of the Cost Improvement Agreement 1993.
3. The Union in its own submission to the Court in
February, 1993 stated and acknowledged, that the
Company's proposals in respect of the transport area
covered all three plants, Kilbarry, Butlerstown and
Dungarvan.
4. If the Company did not contract out this van driving
position it would have to be advertised internally
within the plant among the workers in the General
Operative Section and could not become a position for
redeployment for surplus cutters.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to Clause 2.5 of the 1993 Cost Improvement
Agreement, the Court is satisfied that the Company was entitled to
include the Dungarvan van in its consideration of non-core
activities for contracting out. The Court does not regard the
response to the Union's questions of 26th August, 1992 as altering
this position.
The Court considers that this issue should have been the subject
of fuller discussion with the Union and the reason why it did not
progress beyond the initial advice to the Shop Steward who
signalled that there would be objections is unclear.
As a result, there is a perception that the way the contracting
out was handled by the Company did not offer an opportunity to
various staff to apply for the contact or for the Union to make
adequate representations for the retention of the job in-house.
Such a situation should be avoided in the future but having regard
to the de-facto position in which a contract has been concluded
and also to the general dispersal of transport that has been
agreed, the Court does not find grounds to justify a reversal of
the situation at this stage.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th July, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C./U.S. ---------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.