Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94666 Case Number: LCR14654 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE |
Negotiating Rights for Engineers.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered carefully the submissions, both
written and oral, presented by the parties, is aware of the
sensitivity of the issue before it.
The issue is not strictly one of union recognition in the normal
sense, given the number of unions in the Company already, but
rather one of choice of representation.
The Court is aware of the history of industrial relations problems
in the Company, and of the audit of industrial relations practices
and procedures, carried out by the Labour Relations Commission.
As a result of this audit, a joint working-party of Company/Trade
Union representatives under an independent chairperson was
established, and has operated successfully.
Given the following:
a) that a number of inter-linked issues arise as a result
of the issue before the Court;
b) the sensitivity of industrial relations in the Company;
c) the existence of the joint Company/Union working-party,
the Court believes that the interest of all the parties would be
best served by the following action:
The issue be discussed by the joint working-party with a
view to reaching agreement in-house. In the event of the
parties not reaching a satisfactory solution, the matter to
be referred back to the Court for a Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94666 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14654
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Negotiating Rights for Engineers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking the right to negotiate on behalf of
approximately 60 Engineers out of a total of 76 working with
the Company. The Company's position is that the concession
of rights to "yet another" trade union (there are 13 unions
representing 5,400 staff at present) is undesirable for a
variety of reasons. The Company believes that further
fragmentation of Union representation in an "already
overcrowded scheme" should be avoided.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
between the parties under the auspices of the Labour
Relations Commission, on the 20th of October, 1994.
Agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred, by
the Union, to the Labour Court, on the 14th of November,
1994, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. (The Company indicated to the Union, by
letter, that it could not agree to a referral to the Court
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990).
The Court carried out its investigation into the dispute on
the 7th of December, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. MSF, which incorporates the National Union of Sheet
Metal Workers, Coppersmiths, Heating and Domestic
Engineers, has had negotiating rights with C.I.E. since
1946 and continued to have negotiating rights as part of
the Group of Unions until recently.
2. By seeking negotiating rights, MSF is not increasing the
number of unions as the Institute of Engineers in
Ireland (IEI) is being replaced. It could be argued
that, as Engineers will be jointly represented at
single-table bargaining by T.S.S.A. and MSF, the number
of Unions is actually reduced.
3. Following conciliation, MSF was offered full negotiating
rights on behalf of Engineers earning up to #27,000 per
annum, and negotiating rights (excluding wage
negotiations) for Engineers earning over #27,000. A
ceiling on negotiating rights, tied to a particular wage
level, is unacceptable, as it would place substantial
restrictions on the rights of Engineers to negotiate.
4. The salaries of the Chief Engineer and other higher
grades are covered by the Gleeson Report, and are,
therefore, reflective of outside comparisons. It is
unreasonable that Engineers on these scales should seek
to prevent others from seeking the right to negotiate.
5. All workers below Grade 8 are already covered by
negotiations. The workers who are not covered are those
at a level between Grade 8 and those covered by Gleeson.
The majority of those are represented by MSF.
6. The demands on many Engineers are such that they have to
work substantial hours every week, which means that most
weeks they are in receipt of lower remuneration than
those they supervise, working the same hours. Whilst
almost all other groups have been involved in
productivity deals, the Engineers have been left badly
behind. A Divisional Engineer with a high level of
responsibility for a substantial number of Engineers,
including Engineering supervisors, skilled and operative
staff, receives less pay than a Recruitment Engineer in
Forbairt, and probably receives 50% less than his
equivalent in the E.S.B. Therefore, the Company has a
vested interest in preventing Engineers earning above
#27,000 per annum, from getting negotiating rights.
7. The refusing of negotiating rights to MSF on the grounds
that there are already sufficient Unions in the Company
is unreasonable. The Company is preventing anyone from
negotiating on behalf of the Engineers as the T.S.S.A.
has been refused an extension of negotiating rights
beyond the grades presently represented.
8. The General Manager, before his recent appointment,
actually suggested that the Engineers join a Trade
Union.
9. The Union would limit its membership to "engineers
working as professional engineers".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There are already too many Trade Unions operating within
the Company and there is already ample scope for
representation on behalf of any category of staff within
the existing Trade Union structure.
2. Serious industrial relations problems have arisen
because of the multiplicity of unions and this is a
problem which the Company is attempting to resolve with
the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission. MSF
is known to have an active recruitment policy and,
indeed, were pressing the Company for negotiations
before the document with T.S.S.A. was signed.
3. Concession of negotiating rights to MSF (an outside
Trade Union) will undoubtedly give rise to further
applications from Trade Unions, who at present represent
staff within the Company, for the extension of their
negotiating rights to cover additional grades. We have
rejected a number of such applications within the recent
past and have received threats of industrial action.
Thus the vicious circle will start again and undo much
good work done in the recent past.
4. MSF have not been admitted to the I.C.T.U. Trade Union
Group which harmonises negotiations covering affiliated
unions. There are objections from other Trade Unions in
the Group to the admission of MSF.
5. MSF are not prepared to accept existing agreements,
specifically the agreement covering the 'negotiating
salary-limit' in relation to managerial staff. This has
obvious consequences for all other executive staff.
6. The serving of notice of industrial action on another of
the C.I.E. companies by a Trade Union seeking
negotiating rights covering clerical staff has serious
implications, because of the free movement of executive
and clerical staff within the C.I.E. Group of Companies.
The Union concerned already represents categories of
staff within Iarnrod Eireann and the granting of
negotiating rights for executive staff to MSF would
place the Company in an invidious situation. If both
this Union and MSF were to secure negotiating rights
there would be 4 Trade Unions representing less than 850
clerical and executive staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered carefully the submissions, both
written and oral, presented by the parties, is aware of the
sensitivity of the issue before it.
The issue is not strictly one of union recognition in the normal
sense, given the number of unions in the Company already, but
rather one of choice of representation.
The Court is aware of the history of industrial relations problems
in the Company, and of the audit of industrial relations practices
and procedures, carried out by the Labour Relations Commission.
As a result of this audit, a joint working-party of Company/Trade
Union representatives under an independent chairperson was
established, and has operated successfully.
Given the following:
a) that a number of inter-linked issues arise as a result
of the issue before the Court;
b) the sensitivity of industrial relations in the Company;
c) the existence of the joint Company/Union working-party,
the Court believes that the interest of all the parties would be
best served by the following action:
The issue be discussed by the joint working-party with a
view to reaching agreement in-house. In the event of the
parties not reaching a satisfactory solution, the matter to
be referred back to the Court for a Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th January, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.