Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95193 Case Number: LCR14729 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LIMERICK CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of an agreement.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds that the
agreement provides that the parties will maintain their separate
identities. In normal working this should be the manner in which
the agreement is operated. However, for the purpose of the
call-outs and emergencies, the Assistant Supervisor is carrying
out the duties of the Superintendent and as such, directions and
instructions from the Assistant Supervisor should be accepted and
acted upon.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95193 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14729
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LIMERICK CORPORATION
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of an agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 10 workers employed in the Water
Section. In February, 1994 the Corporation established the
Sanitary Services Department following discussions with the
Union. The Water Department and the Sewerage Department were
amalgamated to establish the new department. Heretofore the
Sewerage Section came within the scope of the Cleansing
Section and part-time supervision was given by the Assistant
Supervisor and Superintendent. Early in 1995 the Corporation
appointed an Assistant Supervisor from the Sewerage Section
with responsibility to deputise for the Superintendent in his
absence and to call out operatives from the Water Section on
the emergency standby roster. The workers from the Water
Section refused to respond to call outs under this Assistant
Supervisor. The Union claimed that the Corporation breached
an agreement which provided that despite the establishment of
the Sanitary Services Department both Sections would maintain
their separate identities within the scope of the new
arrangements. Agreement was not possible at local level
discussions and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A Conciliation conference was held on
the 14th March, 1995 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 22nd March, 1995. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 10th April, 1995. A letter
recommendation issued on the 12th April, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Corporation confirmed to the Union, by letter dated
1st February, 1994, that each of the sections would
maintain their separate identities within the new
arrangements. Work practices would not be affected,
with workers undertaking the same duties as before.
Assurances were given that an Assistant Supervisor would
be responsible for the Water Section and that another
Assistant Supervisor would have responsibility for the
Sewerage Section. The Corporation has breached the
agreement by appointing the Assistant Supervisor from
the Sewerage section to be in charge of the Water
Section.
2. The Corporation's reorganisation proposals of February,
1994 were not properly clarified to the workers
concerned. Had they been advised that Assistant
Supervisors were interchangeable from section to section
they would not have agreed to the setting up of the
Sanitary Services Section. The workers in the Water
Section will not respond to call-outs from the appointed
worker. They cannot accept the Corporation's
interpretation of the agreement.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation's re-organisation proposals involved
only very minor changes. Both Water and Sewerage Sections
already operated from the same depot. Pay and
conditions of employment were not affected and no
transfers were involved. The primary objective of the
re-organisation was to give coherence to the Management
of all of the Corporation's underground services. The
Corporation does not envisage general interchangeability
of staff between the sections.
2. The refusal of the workers in the Water Section to work
with the Assistant Supervisor is totally unreasonable.
The Corporation reserves the right to transfer staff in
accordance with the varying needs of its services and
the resources available. In this case there have been
no transfers, and no general interchangeability has been
effected. The Corporation has the right to decide who
should supervise work in the Water Section on an
occasional basis or at any time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds that the
agreement provides that the parties will maintain their separate
identities. In normal working this should be the manner in which
the agreement is operated. However, for the purpose of the
call-outs and emergencies, the Assistant Supervisor is carrying
out the duties of the Superintendent and as such, directions and
instructions from the Assistant Supervisor should be accepted and
acted upon.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th April, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.