FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHN A WOOD LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1) Seniority, 2) Outsourcing, 3) Flexibility
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of the CRH Group of Companies and is one the main suppliers of construction materials in Munster. In September, 1999, Labour Court Recommendation No. 16297 issued in regard to the closure of the Ballincollig garage. Relocation and redundancy packages were agreed, leaving 12 craftsmen to be relocated. The Union claims that it is the work practises required by the Company for these 12 workers which are at the centre of the present dispute. At present, the 12 workers continue to report for work in Ballincollig even though they may be based in other locations, e.g. Mallow or Killarney.
The issues in dispute are as follows:
1. Seniority: Under the terms of the current 'in-house' agreement, if a worker from Balincollig with 23 years' experience is relocated to a new base, a worker in the new base with 5 years' experience could be regarded as the senior person.
2. Flexibility: The workers are prepared to negotiate on certain elements of flexibility but only for an increase in basic pay.
3. Outsourcing: The Union's problem is with the Company's use of sub-contractors, and also what it regards as a low basic wage.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission, and a conciliation conference took place on the 24th of February, 2000. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of April, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th of May, 2000, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. During discussions between the parties, the idea of annualised hours was proposed as a means of solving the dispute, but the idea was blocked by the CRH Group.
2. The workers feel insecure about the present 'in-house' agreement in relation to seniority. It is unfair that a worker with 5 years'service could be regarded as senior to a worker with 23 years' service.
3. The Company's policy regarding outsourcing, particularly in the maintenance department, has led to a demoralisation of this section. There is no agreement on contractors, and the workers will not agree to their work being outsourced. The present hourly rate for experienced craftsmen is £7.33 , while the pay for fitters in the Construction Industry is £10 per hour.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union agreement recognises seniority by location rather than by Company service. Over the years, the Company has honoured seniority at all times even when another mechanism might have been preferable, but the Union would not allow a change to the agreement.
2. The Company needs to repair plant and equipment as quickly as possible to meet customer demand, and to have the flexibility to react to requirements. It needs to use reputable recognised main dealers and agents, both on Company sites and at their premises to carry out work where urgency is required and capacity is not available. The Company is fully committed to using its workforce as its primary means of service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has taken into consideration of all aspects of this dispute. The Union is seeking compensation for the disturbance of an existing agreement on "seniority on site" arrangements, and for changes in work practices in respect of employees who are required to transfer from Ballincollig to various locations in Cork.
The Court accepts that the issues involved in this case are complex and difficult for both parties, and have been the subject of negotiations for some time. The Court envisages a possible solution through the introduction of a "work to finish" system, coupled with the introduction of teamworking and flexibility between crafts. The Court recommends that efforts should be made to devise such systems with this group to include an average hours payment system. Assistance may be sought from the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission if necessary.
The Court makes this recommendation in return for acceptance by the Union of the following on the issues of seniority and outsourcing.
Seniority
In the event of compulsory lay-offs or a redundancy situation arising, the issue of seniority should be dealt with at that time and the assurances on seniority, given by the Company, must form the basis for resolution of any disputes arising.
Outsourcing/contracting
The Court notes that the Company is fully committed to using its workforce as its primary means of service, and the assurance given that there is no threat to either the security of permanent employees or their earnings potential. The Court accepts that the Company had sound commercial reasons for the introduction of maintenance guarantees on all new equipment, and the use of contractors on specialised equipment. The Court recommends that the Company should ensure that maintenance programmes for all other machinery should be drawn up and agreed with the Union.
The Court recommends that the Union accepts the use of contractors, given the commitments made by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th June, 2000______________________
CON/CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.