FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CROWN EQUIPMENT LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Temporary workers agreement: (2) Starting date for four permanent workers: (3) Shop steward.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of mechanical lift equipment, mainly for the export market. It employs approximately 300 people at its plant in Galway. The current dispute involves the following (a) Temporary workers agreement; (b) Starting date for 4 permanent workers; (c) Shop steward.
(a) Temporary Workers Agreement:
The Union claims that it has an agreement with the Company in relation to temporary workers and until a new agreement is put in place the old one should remained in force. The current agreement provides for a baseline of 237 permanent jobs. Any new agreement would also have to contain a baseline figure.
The Company claims that as a consequence of the fluctuating nature of the Company's business it is often necessary to hire temporary workers to meet demand and then lay them off as demand passed. However, there was resistance from the Union when it came to letting temporary workers go. As a consequence, the Company and the Union entered into an agreement in September, 1994, which provided for a baseline of 237 permanent positions. As permanent employees left the Company they were replaced from the pool of temporary employees. All the long term temporary employees have now been made permanent. The Company contends, therefore, that a new Company/Union agreement is called for without the necessity of a baseline figure.
The Union rejected this proposal.
(b) Starting date for 4 permanent workers.
The Union claims that 4 temporary workers were employed in December, 1994 on two-month contracts, which were renewed on a continuous basis up to September, 1996. They were then let go. They were subsequently re-employed in November, 1996 as permanent workers. The Union contends that their service should be considered continuous for sick pay, pensions, etc. from December, 1994.
The Company rejected this proposal. It stated that it recognised the legal position of the workers concerned that their rights under law cannot be altered by accepting a starting date of November, 1996.
(c) Shop Steward
The Company claims that the Wheel Machine shop is a new area of the Company which was set up in 1992. It is a plastic moulding department which makes plastic wheels for pallet trucks. There are 5 rotating shifts of 2 men per shift. The Company claims that if a shop steward is elected from this department it would defeat the purpose of the high investment made in this area because his absence would have to be covered at a very high cost. Any grievances which the workers currently have are handled by the shop steward from the Machine Department.
The Union put forward a proposal to resolve this issue. It proposed that the week-end shift could offer the relief required.
The Company rejected this proposal.
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 8th April, 1997 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th August, 1997 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court heard the dispute on the 6th of October, 1997.
Temporary Workers Agreement:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is currently a Company/Union agreement on temporary workers in place which provides for a baseline of 237 permanent jobs. This will remain until a new agreement is in place.
2. Any new agreement will have to contain a baseline figure in relation to permanent posts.
3. The Union is concerned at the casualisation of the workforce and the erosion of permanent employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All long term temporary workers have now been made permanent. There is no need , therefore, to continue to maintain a baseline figure of 237 permanent jobs.
2. The Company is seeking to conclude a new agreement on temporary workers but without the need of a baseline figure.
3. The Company has to have the freedom to determine the number of permanent /temporary staff it requires to operate the plant.
Starting date for 4 permanent workers
Union's Arguments:
5. 1. The four staff concerned were temporary employees in December, 1994 and were subsequently made permanent from November, 1996. The workers concerned should have permanent status from December, 1994.
2. The Union wants the employment service of these workers backdated to December, 1994 and all the benefits pertaining to permanent workers to be credited to them from that date.
Company's Arguments:
6. 1. The workers concerned were made permanent as part of negotiations with the Union concerning a new "Temporary Workers Agreement".
2. The workers' service was broken from various dates between 1995 and 1996 and are therefore not entitled to have their permanent status backdated to December, 1994.
3. Any concession of this claim will have serious knock-on effects for the Company.
Shop Steward
Union's Arguments:
7. 1. The Union claims that it is unacceptable that a worker from the Wheel Machine Dept does not have the option of becoming the shop steward for this area.
2. The week-end shift could be utilised to provide the relief required if there was a shop steward elected from the Wheel Machine Department.
3. The Company is acting in an undemocratic manner by refusing to allow for the election of a shop steward from this area.
Company's Arguments:
8. 1. There is no desire among the staff of the Wheel Machine Department to go forward as shop steward.
2. When this Department was set up in 1992 it was agreed that no shop steward representation would emanate from this area.
3. The nature of the work in the Wheel Machine Department is not suitable to having employees absenting themselves to perform representational duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court recommends as follows on the three items in dispute.
(1) Temporary Workers Agreement:
The Court is satisfied that the Company's requirement for a Temporary Workers Agreement is valid. The Court accordingly recommends that the Union and Company meet to negotiate an agreement which will include when and at what level and under what terms and conditions temporary workers can be recruited and let go.
(2) Starting date - Four Permanent Workers
The Court notes the Company's recognition of the legal position of these workers and accepts that their rights under law cannot be interfered with by accepting a staring date of November, 1996. The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
(3) Shop Steward.
Under the circumstances outlined and recording that the employees in the Wheel Machine Department can and will be represented by a Shop Steward the Court considers the Company position is not unreasonable and should be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
17th October, 1997______________________
L.W./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.