FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD FOODS PLC - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Walsh |
1. Dispute concerning the status of a secretary.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to a Company request to the Union for agreement on the relinquishing of Union status by 1 of 3 Confidential Secretaries in the clerical section. Arising from a Labour Relations Commission proposal in February, 1994, agreement was reached on management proposals in relation to the 3 Confidential Secretaries. The 3 positions were to remain as union positions, with the opportunity for other employees in the clerical section to move into them should vacancies arise. One of the 3 has been appointed as secretary to the Secretary of the Board and the Company is seeking to make her post non-union, on the basis of her new duties. It claims that the nature of her new duties are such that union membership is inappropriate and that there are precedents for this in the Company. The Union does not object in principle to the Company request. However, it is concerned about the implication for manning levels of this measure, arguing that the Company has effectively created another post and has reduced the Confidential Secretary complement to 2. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The Union indicated that it could only consider the Company request on the basis of the next most senior temporary employee in the clerical section being made permanent, with the Company giving a commitment that the next vacancy in the Confidential Secretary complement would be open, for promotion, to the clerical section.
The Union also expressed dissatisfaction with what it saw as the disturbance of the 1994 agreement. The Company indicated that it does not intend to increase the overall manning levels in the clerical section, on the grounds that the clerical staff level has been left intact despite widespread rationalisation in recent years in other parts of the Company.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 31st of October, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Waterford, on the 3rd of December, 1996.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The duties and responsibilities of the worker in question here changed since her transfer from the position of secretary to the Managing Director of the Dairy Business to the highly confidential position of secretary to the Company Secretary (details supplied to the Court).
2. Those duties have, since the foundation of the Company, been carried out by a Confidential Secretary who is a non-union member. The Company Board sees no reason why the proposal put forward should not be accepted especially in view of the fact that the worker is agreeable to terminate her position as a member of the clerical union.
3. The duties which the worker carried out prior to the re-organisation are already adequately catered for and any suggestion that a further appointment should be made cannot be considered.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's members have co-operated fully with the introduction of new technology. However, the situation has arisen whereby managers/accountants are carrying out work which is proper to Union member. This has to be addressed and, accordingly, the Company should enter into discussions with the Union.
2. The agreement entered into in February, 1994 must be taken into account regarding this dispute. The position should remain as a Union promotional post as it appears that the only way a Union member can be promoted above grade 5 is to be classified as non-Union.
3. The Company is attempting to make this position non-Union even though Union members, including temporary clerical workers, carry out relief duties in relation to the post, when required.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is aware that a similar issue was the subject of an agreement between the parties, reached at the Labour Relations Commission, in 1994.
The Court is also conscious that a recent situation with the Company was negotiated between the parties on an agreed basis.
However, given that the number of posts remains the same, and that the Company has indicated that this post would be advertised internally if it became vacant in future, thus ensuring the ongoing promotional outlet, the Court recommends that the employees accept the Company proposal.
The Court further recommends that the Company meets the Union on the wider issue of jobs moving to a non-union situation in order to respond to the fears expressed in the Court in relation to the Company's long term aspirations.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th December, 1996______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.