FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HENKEL (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Change in fire training arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. Henkel Ireland was founded in 1974 as General Mills Chemicals Ireland. Following the purchase of the parent company in 1978 by Henkel KGaA, a German chemical company specialising in the production of detergents, adhesives, cosmetics and cleansing/sanitising systems, the Irish Company was renamed Henkel Ireland Limited.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Company's proposal regarding safety training in relation to approximately 80 shift and day workers. In late 1995, a consultant's report recommended that the Company's approach to safety training be changed to one of emergency response teams and that safety training for the general workforce be six sessions per year.
The Union accepts the principle of emergency response teams but claims that the Company should not change the existing training arrangements for the general workforce (approximately 10 times per year) in the middle of an agreement which comes up for review in 1997. Management argues that it must be allowed to determine the specific safety requirements of the Company and is satisfied that six training sessions for the general workforce is adequate.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 11th June, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 11th July, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on 16th October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is concerned that the Company's proposal to reduce the number of training sessions for the general workforce is influenced by the cost factor involved.
2. The agreement in relation to 10 training sessions per year has been in place for approximately 3 years. As part of the agreement overtime payment is made in return for the workers participation in the training. While management may consider that the overtime payment is a major consideration, the safety of the wrokforce is the Union's priority.
3. The Union is seeking that the current training arrangements for the general workforce remain in place until 1997 when the current agreement is due for review.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is committed to six general training sessions for shift operators as per the agreement of 1978. The Union is seeking training above the provision of the agreement.
2. A major addition in the Company's safety training programme is the introduction since late 1995 of emergency response teams who are being trained to a high standard. There is a lot of emphasis on breathing apparatus training both in simulated and live situations. With this training the Company and its employees have the skills necessary to rescue people from a toxic environment.
3. There has been a significant increase in the number of man hours spent in safety training. The increase is the result of an expert evaluation of the Company's specific needs carried out by safety consultants.
4. The new situation that exists gives a more structured approach to training and also a more focused approach on the general six sessions safety training.
5. The Company must be allowed to determine its specific safety needs at any time. In the circumstances the Court is requested to endorse the Company's right and responsibility to determine the level of safety training.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written submissions of the parties to this dispute and the verbal acceptance during the hearing of the new structure proposed by management believes that the problem now centres on a lack of conviction by the labour force that the new system is fully operational given the training to date.
The Court recommends that the present system of 10 sessions per year should remain in place until March, 1997. Thereafter the new Early Response Team plus 6 training sessions per year will operate.
In the meantime the balance of training for Early Response Teams will be completed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
22nd November, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.