Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95282 Case Number: LCR14768 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH STEEL - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Suspension of four welders.
Recommendation:
5. In the first instance the Court wishes to re-iterate that
overtime should be worked as deemed necessary by Management. This
was accepted by the workers as part of the final acceptance of the
Implementation Plan and must be honoured.
Secondly the Court is of the view that there can be no going back
to the roster system in operation prior to the crisis in 1994 and
neither can the "shift" be re-introduced.
Having stated these two positives the Court having considered the
submissions from the parties is not unsympathetic to the Union's
position in that the four individuals involved have been put in a
position which seriously disrupts and prevents a normal social
life. Whilst Management stated in Court that no one would be
treated unfairly the claimants do not accept this statement.
The Labour Court Recommendation No LCR14506 did not rule out
applying a structure to overtime working. The application of such
a structure need not be a restriction or an impediment to
efficient Management. Given that the Union have given an
assurance that staff will be available to work overtime at all
times, the implementation of a structure would only be a benefit
to the workforce in that it may give a better forecast to them
when they would be required to work overtime. In the Court's view
this is a desirable objective.
The Court must however take into account the recent history of the
plant and the fact that it is still at a critical state in its
efforts to survive. The original Recommendation put aside many of
the impediments and restrictions to maximising output and any
dilution or rolling back of this objective would not be in the
interest of the workforce.
The Court accordingly recommends:-
(a) The Claimants give a written undertaking to work
overtime as required.
(b) The management reiterate their commitment to allocating
overtime in a fair and reasonable manner. That the
parties meet immediately to work out an arrangement
which can achieve the Unions objective while at the
same time giving the Company the assurances they
require.
(c) On acceptance of the above the claimants be re-instated
on the pay roll and that the period since the Court
Hearing be treated as annual leave if that is the wish
of the workers.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95282 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14768
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH STEEL
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Suspension of four welders.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In September, 1994, the Company and the Unions
concluded a survival plan for the Company. This plan
provided for a reduced overtime rate and also that
every worker would be required to work necessary
overtime when requested. The four welders employed by
the Company are consistently unavailable for overtime
from Monday to Friday and have refused requests from
management to do any overtime. Following warnings
which it issued to the workers, the Company suspended
the four welders and warned that unless the workers
consented to the plan and demonstrated their commitment
they would be dismissed.
2. As no agreement could be reached between the Unions and
the Company the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was
held on 28th April, 1995. As no agreement was possible
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 2nd
May, 1995 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated
the dispute on 8th May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Irish Steel workers went through a very traumatic
period in 1994 which culminated in the acceptance of
the Company's survival plan. The plan reduced the
number of welders from 14 to 7 and then subsequently to
5. Under the old system 4 welders were on continuous
shift with 10 welders on days. The present position is
5 welders on days with no shift working.
2. The welders' work and that of production operatives was
contracted out under the survival plan. Fitters were
trained to do the welding work under the new plan and
overtime was to be eliminated altogether. However,
welders have been working 8 to 10 hours overtime per
week on a regular basis.
3. A situation developed where the welders were required
to be available to the plant 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. The Union approached Management and proposed the
following to try and resolve the matter:-
(a) that the Company re-introduce shift working or
(b) a stand-by arrangement be implemented or
(c) that the Company introduce a roster for the
welders so that each individual knew in
advance what work they were to perform.
The engineer associated with the welding section
suggested to the Company that it look at a flexible
arrangement to cover evening and Sunday work on a
rostered basis. The Company rejected all the proposals
put forward to resolve the dispute and subsequently
suspended the 4 welders. The Company is threatening to
dismiss the workers if the dispute is not settled
quickly.
4. Reasonable overtime is defined in he 1936 Conditions of
Employment Act, as being 48 hours and the European
Union Directive on hours of work deems 48 hours as the
maximum a worker can be required to work. The workers
are available to work overtime as required but only on
a structured basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the re-opening of Irish Steel on 27th
September, 1994 every employee was required to sign an
individual acceptance of the Company's Implementation
Plan, the amendment to the Plan and Labour Court
Recommendation No. 14506. Part of what was accepted by
each individual included a clause which provided that
'overtime be worked as deemed necessary by management".
2. This commitment has been honoured by the vast majority
of employees and the 4 welders involved in this dispute
will not be allowed to renege on their commitment or
re-write the agenda for everybody else. It is the
Company's objective to keep overtime working to a
minimum but occasions arise due to the nature of the
business when overtime working is unavoidable. It is
part of running a business effectively that employees
agree to work overtime when required.
3. According to Company records, the employees concerned
have, since October, 1994, decided not to work Sundays
and evenings and in this regard are effectively engaged
in a work to rule. It is clear to the Company that the
current low level of overtime working by the 4 welders
is due to the lower rates which were agreed in
September, 1994 under the Implementation Plan. The
Company will not allow any group of employees to
selectively work those aspects of the agreement they do
not like.
4. The Company has been very patient with the workers
concerned in handling the "work to rule". Meetings
have taken place with the individuals and also with
their Unions. In addition, the Company has written
three letters to each of the 4 workers involved in the
dispute outlining what was required of them and the
consequences of not co-operating. If the dispute is
not settled soon the Company will have no option but to
dismiss the workers.
5. The Company has made great progress since it re-opened
on the 27th September, 1994. This is due to the
tremendous effort on the part of both management and
workers, to make the Company successful again, even in
the face of very difficult decisions which had to be
taken. This has manifested itself in improved results
for the Company despite difficult circumstances.
Unless the 4 workers concerned give an undertaking in
writing to work the Plan in all its aspects and
demonstrate by their action that they are working the
agreement then there is no future for them at the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the first instance the Court wishes to re-iterate that
overtime should be worked as deemed necessary by Management. This
was accepted by the workers as part of the final acceptance of the
Implementation Plan and must be honoured.
Secondly the Court is of the view that there can be no going back
to the roster system in operation prior to the crisis in 1994 and
neither can the "shift" be re-introduced.
Having stated these two positives the Court having considered the
submissions from the parties is not unsympathetic to the Union's
position in that the four individuals involved have been put in a
position which seriously disrupts and prevents a normal social
life. Whilst Management stated in Court that no one would be
treated unfairly the claimants do not accept this statement.
The Labour Court Recommendation No LCR14506 did not rule out
applying a structure to overtime working. The application of such
a structure need not be a restriction or an impediment to
efficient Management. Given that the Union have given an
assurance that staff will be available to work overtime at all
times, the implementation of a structure would only be a benefit
to the workforce in that it may give a better forecast to them
when they would be required to work overtime. In the Court's view
this is a desirable objective.
The Court must however take into account the recent history of the
plant and the fact that it is still at a critical state in its
efforts to survive. The original Recommendation put aside many of
the impediments and restrictions to maximising output and any
dilution or rolling back of this objective would not be in the
interest of the workforce.
The Court accordingly recommends:-
(a) The Claimants give a written undertaking to work
overtime as required.
(b) The management reiterate their commitment to allocating
overtime in a fair and reasonable manner. That the
parties meet immediately to work out an arrangement
which can achieve the Unions objective while at the
same time giving the Company the assurances they
require.
(c) On acceptance of the above the claimants be re-instated
on the pay roll and that the period since the Court
Hearing be treated as annual leave if that is the wish
of the workers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
24th May, 1995 ____________
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, LABOUR COURT.