Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD96125 Case Number: LCR15157 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CLARKE CHAPMAN ENGINEERING SERVICES (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
On consideration of the submissions made, the Court has come to the
conclusion that there are no valid grounds to warrant a review of
the changes to the employee's conditions subsequent to his transfer
to the new company.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD96125 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR15157
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CLARKE CHAPMAN ENGINEERING SERVICES
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1993 the B & I Group underwent a major rationalisation
programme. It entered negotiations with Clarke Chapman
Engineering Services with a view of contracting out the
maintenance function of the Company. Agreement was
reached between both companies in April, 1993 and
following a strike of seventeen weeks over the transfer
of the maintenance department, Clarke Chapman commenced
operations in June, 1993 with staff transferred from the
B & I maintenance division.
2. The worker concerned in this dispute was employed as a
crafts foreman with B & I. The Union claims that on his
transfer to Clarke Chapman Engineering he suffered a
serious deterioration in his terms and conditions of
employment. These included, (1) a reduction in annual
salary from £16,586 to £15,860, (2) his working week
increased from 35.5 hours to 39 hours per week, (3) lost
a plus payment for dirty/height money of £32.34 per week,
and his holiday entitlement was reduced from 25 days per
annum to 21 days per annum.
3. The Company claims that as a result of a number of
conciliation conferences at the Labour Relations
Commission in June, 1993 a proposal was drawn up which
was accepted by the group of Unions and the Company as
the basis for agreement in relation to the terms and
conditions of employment subsequent to the transfer of
B&I staff to Clarke Chapman Engineering Services.
4. The agreement provided that (1) redundancies would be on
a voluntary basis, (2) The redundancy package for seven
workers to be similar to that on offer by B & I plus pay
in lieu of notice; (3) acceptance by the remaining
seventeen workers of new rates of pay, shift
arrangements, rates, terms and conditions laid down in
the document by Clarke Chapman Engineering Services,
subject to amendment on the overtime rate, sick pay and
the disciplinary procedure; (4) all 24 workers to receive
21 months' compensation for loss of earnings based on the
last year with B & I and the first year with Clarke
Chapman as calculated on the notional Clarke Chapman rate
of pay; (5) a lead-in payment of £7,500 to be paid to
each of the seventeen remaining workers.
5. The agreement was accepted by all parties as covering all
compensation for change in employment status, and loss of
the other fringe benefits. The Union claims that the
worker involved in this claim was not part of this
agreement. The Company rejects the Union's argument and
claims that he was part of the agreement (details to be
given to the Court) entered into which set out the terms
and conditions of employment for the future.
6. As no agreement was possible between the parties the
dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference
was held on the 12th January, 1996 but no agreement could
be reached.
7. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd
February, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
on 23rd April, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreements concluded in 1993 in relation to the
rationalisation programme did not include this worker.
2. The worker concerned has suffered a serious
deterioration in the terms and conditions of his
employment. His holiday entitlement has reduced from 25
days to 21 days per annum and his working week has
increased from 35.5 hours to 39 hours per week.
3. In addition, he has suffered a serious financial loss in
salary which has reduced from £16,586 to £15,860 per
annum and also lost a plus payment for dirty/height work
of £32.34 per week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreements entered into in June, 1993 were
comprehensive and set out the terms and conditions of
employment for all workers.
2. The worker concerned received the same compensation terms
as all other workers in respect of loss of earnings and
loss of fringe benefits.
3. The allowances for height/dirty money were consolidated
into the basic rate of pay. In addition, increases of
8%, 2% and 6.3% were given in June, 1993 June, 1994 and
January, 1995 respectively. An average premium of 25% is
also paid for a three cycle shift operation.
4. The Company was only informed by the Union on the 5th
April, 1995 of the worker's dissatisfaction with regards
to his terms of employment - 2 years after the agreement.
It is not proposed to make any amendment to this
agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
On consideration of the submissions made, the Court has come to the
conclusion that there are no valid grounds to warrant a review of
the changes to the employee's conditions subsequent to his transfer
to the new company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd May, 1996 Evelyn Owens
L.W./U.S. ----------------
Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.