FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BAUSCH & LOMB (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation of an agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures contact lenses at its plant in Waterford and employs 1500 workers. In 1999, the Company and the Union negotiated a new 'plant partnership agreement' which includes a substantial industrial peace clause that provided for issues in dispute, which the parties failed to agree on, to be referred to arbitration - the results of which will be binding on both the Company and the Union. The arbitration body was to consist of a management and union nominee with an independent chairperson. The Union claims that under the new agreement it still has access to the Labour Court as a means of dispute resolution. The Company refutes this claim.
On the 2nd May, 2000, the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Waterford on the 22nd September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The parties had discussed the available options open to them in the current dispute resolution procedure following a threatened industrial dispute in 1998. The parties had progressed through each step of the procedure, local discussions, the Labour Relations Commission and finally the Labour Court. The recommendation of the Court were rejected by the membership, and as there was no other step left, it seemed that industrial action would ensue. It was this very threat of Industrial Action that was necessary to address. This was done through the Agreement's peace clause.
2. The purpose of the industrial peace clause was to remove the threat of strike action for a period of time. The 'Ultimate Sanction' was being removed from the Union's arsenal and had to be replaced with some other means of resolution. Throughout the negotiation of this agreement the purpose was to remove the threat of strike at this crucial time in the plant's existence. This, the parties achieved.
3. The dispute resolution procedure as it was, and as it is now, is in the Union's view, as follows:
Old Procedure New Procedure
Local negotiations Local negotiations
Labour Relations Commission Labour Relations Commission
Labour Court Labour Court
Industrial action Arbitration Body
4. The Union has stated throughout this dispute that there may be times where it is agreed to refer matters directly to the Arbitration Body, to expedite an issue, and not refer it to the Labour Court. The Union did not give up its right to attend the Labour Court, should it feel that the intervention of this body may result in an outcome that would be satisfactory to all parties concerned. The Union's agreement with the Company is as per the voluntary code for dispute resolution, it simply now includes a step that precludes the Union from engaging in industrial action for an agreed period of time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. While the plant partnership is an ongoing agreement, the industrial peace section in respect of 'no strike' clause and arbitration was understood to be for a duration of three years. A three-man arbitration body was subsequently agreed. A meeting of July 21st, 1999 dealt with a number of issues including clarification of the arbitration process and this was confirmed by letter of 23rd July, 1999 which states ". . . . . that disputes which could not be resolved internally, could be referred to a conciliation officer before going to the Arbitration Body".
2. The Company did not agree that the process provided for referral to the Labour Court and then Arbitration as necessary. The Company is of the view that a procedure which includes both the Labour Court and arbitration as a separate step is unworkable. It was not what the parties agreed, and the Company will not agree to it.
3. There were a number of reasons why the parties opted for an arbitration body in the first instance. It was felt that a perception of frequent investigations by the Court was unhelpful to the standing of the Waterford plant at corporate level. There was significant publicity associated with the investigations around that time which was unhelpful to the Company management who felt that the processing of such disputes by an arbitration body privately would allow the Company to avoid
negative comment in the media. It was felt by the parties that an Arbitration Body would be able to process issues more quickly given that, at the time, developments were happening at a rapid pace and that there was an extensive agenda on the table between the parties. The above rationale did not in any way reflect on the parties' perception of the Court or the way in which it had dealt with any of the issues in the lead up to the Partnership Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the unusual nature of this case , the Court considers it inappropriate to make a recommendation on the issue in dispute; however, the Court wishes to make the following statement:
"The Labour Court, when exercising its functions under the Industrial Relations Acts, is a Court of last resort and its role is to be available to workers and management as required".
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5 October, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.