FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOART LONGYEAR (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation of Company/Union Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates in the metals engineering sector and employs a workforce of 200 in its Shannon facility, which has been in existence since 1960. The dispute concerns Clause 7 (Sub-contracting/Outside contractors) of the 1980 Company/Union Agreement, the final sub-clause, of which states:
"The company shall ensure that all contractors and their employees are
bona-fide and that their craft employees hold current Union cards of the
appropriate Craft Union."
The Unions claim that Clause 7 precludes the Company from sending work to non-union contract shops. The Company's position is that the Clause relates solely to contract labour coming on-site. The Clause, which has been contested periodically over the past 10 years by the Unions, has been the subject of local discussions and two conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, following which agreement has not been reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of November, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Limerick, on the 3rd of November, 1999, the earliest date convenient to the parties concerned.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The wording of Clause 7 is clear. It does not facilitate the sending of work, by the Company, to non-union shops.
2. In no other companies where the same wording is used is non-union labour employed.
3. The Company has refused to provide the Unions with details of the sub-contractors it employs, in order to protect those who are operating in the black market.
4. There is balance in the Agreement and Clause 7 gives the Company sufficient flexibility and does not restrict the Company in its operations.
5. In the interests of maintaining the credibility of the Agreement, as a whole, the Company should, in future, engage only bona-fide contractors with craft employees holding current Union cards.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believes that Clause 7 only requires the utilisation of unionised contractors when on-site.
2. The Unions did not raise matters in relation to the use of outside contractors until 1988, 8 years after the Agreement was signed. Before, and since, the Company has operated on the understanding that the Agreement relates to sub-contract labour coming on-site.
3. The Company is aware of similarly worded agreements elsewhere between other employers and the same unions, where the company application is identical to that of this Company.
4. The requirement exists for the Company to continue the current practice for economic and business reasons.
5. The Company, at all times, ensures that no direct employee is adversely impacted upon as a consequence of such utilisation of sub-contract labour. A new interpretation of the Agreement, contrary to long established practice in this Company and within the industry, would damage the Company's legitimate right to organise business on a commercially viable and sound operational manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court from the wording of the 1980 Agreement that it can only be interpreted in the manner put forward by the Union. It is equally clear the manner of implementation of this Agreement has been a source of contention between the parties for over ten years. In an industrial relations context, the written terms of an agreement and the manner of its implementation over time must be regarded as being of equal importance.
It is noted that the agreement does not have a fixed duration. Nonetheless, in view of the passage of time since its negotiation and the difficulties in relation to its application, the Court considers that the parties should now re-negotiate its terms so as to reflect the modern requirement of the Company while safeguarding the interests of its employees.
In the interim, the Court can see no good reason why the Company should not provide the Union with the information which it has requested in relation to the identify of the contractors to which work is being out-sourced. Any further difficulties which emerge in relation to those contractors should be addressed between the parties, through the grievance procedure if necessary, as provided for in Clause 7 of the Agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd November, 1999______________________
M.K./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.