FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK CORPORATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation of disputes agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the interpretation of an Agreement made on the 13th of August, 1996, regarding the Corporation's use of contractors. The Agreement was made on foot of proposals issued to both sides by the Labour Relations Commissions (LRC) on the 6th of June, 1996. In the letter of the 6th of June, it was stated that the proposed Agreement related to contracts issued other than:
(a) The major "road type" contracts already common, and
(b) Contracts which are issued following a compulsory tendering process in which the Corporation was not or could not have been successful.
Part of the Agreement provides for the Corporation giving notice to the Union of its intention to use contractors. This would allow for prior discussions to take place regarding details of the contract. The Agreement also provided for "The provision of equivalent overtime for employees to that which may be enjoyed by contractor's employees on contracts covered by the terms of this agreement." The Union claims that the Agreement worked well until the beginning of 1999. At that stage, according to the Union, management's attitude began to change, and it started to deploy contractors without notifying the Union in advance, as per the Agreement.
The Corporation claims that the current dispute initially arose as a result of the upsurge in road excavations in the last 2 years, and the need to put this work out to contract (details of the work were supplied to the Court). In October, 1999, the Corporation gave the Union details of roadwork it proposed to put out to contract. The Corporation claims that the Union has refused to agree to the proposal, and insists that the work be done by direct labour. Point 6 of the agreement reads as follows:
"Any dispute(s) arising from the interpretation of this agreement will be referred to the LRC for resolution."
The dispute was referred to the LRC and a conciliation conference took place on the 18th of April, 2000. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th of June, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of July, 2000, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Corporation claims that its only requirement in deploying contractors in relation to work normally done by Union members is:
(a) to inform the Union in advance
(b) to maintain the establishment, and
(c) provide for hour for hour compensation where applicable.
This is unacceptable to the Union. The Corporation must have Union agreement in advance. The Agreement of August, 1996, was not designed so that the Corporation could have "carte blanche" to deploy contractors without Union agreement.
2. If agreement cannot be reached, the Corporation must consider
(a) employing extra staff,
(b) increased overtime, or
(c) a combination of both.
Management's recent aggressive approach is not in the spirit of partnership. As a result, there has been no real discussion between the parties since October, 1999.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENT'S
4. 1. Because of the huge amount of work involved, the Corporation had no choice but to use contractors. The volume has increased to such an extent that it would be beyond the capacity of the Road Maintenance Section while carrying out its primary function. The Union does not disagree with this.
2. The Corporation has honoured the Agreement in full. It has consulted with the Union prior to the award of the contract. Staff levels in the section have been maintained at or above 1996 levels. Overtime arrangements, as per the Agreement, will be applied.
3. The Union is, in effect, exercising a veto by refusing to do the work which should have started in October, 1999. It does not have the right to do so, under the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered carefully the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The Court is concerned that this procedure has gone into dispute, despite operating for a number of years. While the Court has been asked to make a definitive interpretation of the Agreement, it is the Court's view that neither party is correct in its interpretation, as presented.
The Corporation argues that it has the right to implement its programme after consultation, without agreement, and the Union argued initially that the Corporation cannot implement without agreement.
Both sides accept that the Agreement calls for the referral to a third party if areas of disagreement arise.
It is the Court's interpretation of the Agreement that the Corporation must present its programme and, following discussions and clarification, implement the programme, subject to items of disagreement being referred to a third party.
The Court does not accept that the Agreement gives the Union a veto, nor does it give the Corporation the right to implement disputed proposals before a third party decision.
The Court recommends that the parties agree a limited time for presentation and discussions on plans, circa 4 weeks, and then referral to a third party.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th August, 2000______________________
conChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.