FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAWN MEATS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Payment of six hours' pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in boning beef for the export market and employs approximately 100 workers at its plant in Grannagh, Co. Waterford, of whom 90 are represented by the Union.
On 15th January, 1996, the staff reported for work at 8.00 a.m. but were unable to start due to an ammonia leak. At 9.00 a.m. Management declared the plant safe to work in and requested that staff commence working. The workers were not satisfied that a comprehensive risk assessment had been carried out and refused to start work. Negotiations continued and at 9.30 a.m. the Manager again requested staff to begin work. At 10.00 a.m. he informed staff that if they did not begin work at 10.00 a.m. they would not be paid. The staff left the premises shortly afterwards. The workers were subsequently paid two hours pay for 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and the Union is claiming payment of the remaining six hours' pay.
The issue could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on 22nd May, 1996. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 11th December, 1996, in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management did not give sufficient information regarding the levels of ammonia present in the plant and did not clearly state that the plant was safe to work in for staff who suffer from asthma. The criteria used to determine the safety of the area was based solely on the vets', maintenance men's and Safety Officer's experience. There is no scientific mechanism available which can measure the extent of a leak at a given time.
2. There is no reference to ammonia leaks in the Company's safety statement although leaks are not uncommon. A full risk assessment and hazard identification should have been carried out and included in the statement in accordance with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989. The workers were prepared to wait on the premises after 10.00 a.m. to allow for further assessment to be carried out but Management stated that if they did not commence work at 10.00 a.m. they would not be paid and may as well go home.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From a health and safety point of view the Company took every necessary and appropriate step to deal with the leak. Union shop stewards and health and safety representatives were consulted. The Company was totally satisfied that the plant was safe to work in at 9.00 a.m. and made three requests to the staff to commence work.
2. The workers' action is a clear breach of established grievance procedures which are provided for by the Company/Union agreement. The Company's safety record is excellent and the Health and Safety Authority has acknowledged the Company as among the best fifty companies in Ireland. The Company cannot reward staff who engage in an unofficial 'walk-out'.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find grounds have been put forward to warrant concession of the Union's claim.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of payment of the time lost.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
23rd December, 1996______________________
D.G./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.