Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95317 Case Number: LCR14811 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Manning levels of Quality Assurance (Q.A.) Department.
Recommendation:
Having considered all the arguments made in the written and oral
submissions the Court does not concede the Union's claim.
The agreement on manning, to go from 3 to 2 is clear and
unambiguous.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95317 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14811
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Manning levels of Quality Assurance (Q.A.) Department.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the interpretation of the Company/Union
agreement relating to self-covering from 3 down to 2 within
the Q.A. grades.
The agreement was implemented on 11th January, 1993. In
July, 1993, one of the 3 Q.A. workers went absent through
illness and has not been replaced. The Union claims that
self-covering should not apply when the absence is known or
planned. The Company maintains that self-covering applies in
all cases.
In October, 1993, a dispute arose concerning overtime and
weekend work for the Q.A. grade. The dispute was referred to
the Rights Commissioner and a recommendation issued as
follows:-
"I recommend that a replacement will be provided by the
Company when it is known before noon on Friday, and I
recommend the Union accepts this in settlement of the
dispute".
In June, 1994, the Union raised the matter in relation to the
worker who was absent through illness since July 1993.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 28th September,
1994. No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on 23rd May, 1995, under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing
took place on 8th June, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreed manning level for the Q.A. category is 3
workers. It was never envisaged that self-covering
would apply to known or planned absences. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation confirms this.
2. No fair agreement could have an indefinite period of
self-covering. One of the 3 Q.A. workers has been on
sick leave for the past 2 years and the Company has
refused to provide cover for him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company/Union agreement states that "there will be 3
people self-covering to 2". The worker who went absent
through illness was not replaced as per the agreement,
which applies in all cases.
2. If a situation arises where there are only 2 workers and
the level of work requires extra help, then additional
help will be given. However, experience in the last 2
years has shown that the 2 Q.A. workers have coped
adequately with the levels of work. The 2 workers are
able to cope with their workload.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all the arguments made in the written and oral
submissions the Court does not concede the Union's claim.
The agreement on manning, to go from 3 to 2 is clear and
unambiguous.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th June, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.