FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SMURFIT WEB PRESS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged breach of agreement on de-manning money.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in general printing. In 1994 it lost a contract with one of its major customers to a UK based company. As a result, 50 employees were made redundant. The redundancies were across the board.
The issue before the Court concerns a 1981/82 rationalisation agreement on de-manning. The Company claims that the agreement was only intended to apply to persons working in the litho area at that time.
The Company claims that since 1982 all new personnel coming into the department have been excluded from receiving the de-manning allowance.
The Union disagrees with the Company's interpretation of the 1981/82 agreement and claims that 5 of its members are entitled to the de-manning allowance.
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 19th July, 1996 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 28th July, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 5 employees concerned are entitled to receive the de-manning allowance, under the 1981/82 agreement.
2. The Union was unaware that the allowance was not being paid otherwise it would have pursued the matter sooner.
3. When employees are moved into the Bindery Department they receive the payment or a proportion of it depending how long they spend there.
4. The Union has recently (July, 1997) negotiated a new agreement for the Machine Room which is similar to the 1981/82 agreement. The rate agreed is the future rate for that particular area of the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The de-manning allowance only applied to employees who were in that department at the time of the re-organisation in 1981/82.
2. Since 1982 all new employees to this department have been excluded from receiving this allowance.
3. The implementation of the 1981/82 agreement has never been challenged either at local or branch level.
4. The claim for the allowance has only now arisen, 15 years after the original agreement was signed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Agreement in dispute is not clear on some aspects and could have been drafted in a clearer manner.
However, the Court taking into account all of the issues in this case does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
6th August, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.