Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94167 Case Number: LCR14426 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LAPPLE IRELAND LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning "attendance" holidays.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the circumstances of this case as
described by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
Given all of the circumstances the Court does not find grounds
have been adduced to warrant concession of the Union's claim and
accordingly rejects it.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94167 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14426
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LAPPLE IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning "attendance" holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns the retention, by the workers who
are in staff grades, of the "attendance holidays scheme"
which granted a maximum of 3 extra days' leave dependent
upon perfect attendance. As part of a new
comprehensive agreement which dealt with a redundancy
and rationalisation programme, the scheme was
discontinued. The comprehensive agreement was signed by
the parties on 17th May, 1993 and it led to the loss of
approximately 90 jobs and the reorganisation of
work-practices, organisation and management of the
Company.
2. Some elements of the agreement had been the subject of a
Labour Court Recommendation LCR14027, which was issued
on 22nd April, 1993. The Court's recommendation did not
refer to the discontinuation of the "attendance"
holidays.
3. Following the signing of the agreement, the Union put
forward a claim for the retention of the "attendance"
holidays. The Company accepted that the Union had made
it aware that it was unhappy with the "attendance"
holidays provision. However, it rejected the Union's
claim on the basis that it had signed the agreement and
the matter was now closed.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on
14th October, 1993 and 8th February, 1994. No progress
was possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990 on 15th March, 1994. A Labour court
investigation took place in Carlow on 29th March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Throughout the negotiations on the new comprehensive
agreement, the Union has always maintained its
opposition to the Clause relating to the removal of
"attendance" holidays for staff.
2. Apart from redundancies, no other union suffered a loss
of terms or conditions because of the rationalisation.
The clause was introduced as a concession to other
unions. There is no major financial saving to the
Company as the days must be earned by a perfect
attendance.
3. The Union has acted in good faith throughout the
negotiations. The Union had been told by the Company
that something would be done with regard to the holidays
(details supplied to the Court). The Union signed the
agreement to ensure the continuation of the business.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The Comprehensive Agreement was a total package and was
agreed by all unions on this basis. In recognition of
the real threat of knock-on claims, the Company has
consistently refused to consider the Union's claim. The
Union represents 38 of the Company's staff and its
membership is the smallest of the 3 unions in the
Company.
2. The main impact of the change required was focused on
the craft and general unions. The Company required to
make savings, increase efficiencies and end demarcation.
In this context the staff "attendance" holidays scheme
had to be discontinued. The agreement is a total
package and no opt-out clause is available to any group.
3. The Labour Court recommended some changes to the
agreement document. It did not refer to Clause 28
which stated that the "attendance" days would cease.
The removal of the attendance days scheme was endorsed
by the Court. While the Union may have reserved its
position prior to this, their signing of the Agreement
has to over-rule any previous position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the circumstances of this case as
described by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
Given all of the circumstances the Court does not find grounds
have been adduced to warrant concession of the Union's claim and
accordingly rejects it.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th May, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.