FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROADBINDERS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Use of contractors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the haulage of bitumen from Dublin for road surfacing. The dispute concerns six workers employed by the Company at their Mallow plant who are seeking a £30.00 per week increase for drivers and plant operators and a pro-rata payment for yardmen. The increase is being sought as compensation for the use by the Company of outside contractors.
The Company claims that it has to use outside contractors in order to survive and states that the claimants have not lost out financially as result of using the contractors. In fact, the Company claims that the workers' salary has increased each year.
The Union states that it concluded an agreement with the Company in 1983 following the reorganisation of the Company. The agreement provided that CIE would be the only contractor to be used by the Company. The Company has broken this agreement by employing other contractors. The Union is seeking appropriate compensation for its members.
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 13th of April, 1999 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of April, 1999 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 14th of June, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1983 Company/Union agreement provided that CIE would be the only contractor which the Company would use in the haulage of bitumen.
2. The Company has abused a "Gentleman's Agreement" by employing outside contractors on a regular basis.
3. The Company could obviate the need for outside contractors by employing more staff.
4. The workers concerned always had a wage link with local industry involved in similar work. The increase being sought will maintain this link.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the 1980s, CIE stopped transporting bitumen from Mallow station to the Company. The Company had no alternative but to employ an outside contractor to do this work.
2. Most companies in this line of business employ outside contractors as a way of keeping costs down.
3. The claim is a cost increasing one and is, therefore, precluded under Clause 6 of Partnership 2000.
4. Contractors were only employed when the workers were unable to handle the workload or when there was an emergency.
5. It would be too costly to employ extra drivers and purchase additional trucks since the business is seasonal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company believes that it has the right to hire in contractors to meet the business requirements and claims that it has done so for many years.
The Union's position is that this was part of the Rail Link Agreement, was limited in its scope and that loads would revert back to them if not being carried on the Rail system. It is accepted that the current employees are fully occupied and are not losing money as a result of the use of contractors. Given this situation and the lack of any agreed procedure on contractors the Court finds no basis for conceding payment to the employees in this case.
However, the Court recommends that the parties meet to reach an agreement in relation to the use of contractors in future, to cover circumstances where current employees' earnings are affected by changes in trade levels.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
18th June, 1999______________________
L.W./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.