FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CROWN EQUIPMENT (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Temporary workers' agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of forklift trucks and pallet lifting equipment. It employs approximately 345 people at its plant in Galway. The current dispute involves the temporary workers' agreement which was proposed following discussions chaired by the Labour Relations Commission.
The Union claims that the Company has stated that they will not adhere to the terms of the existing temporary agreement. It also claims that seniority of service should be the mechanism for selection for permanent vacancies. On the 23rd, February, 2001, the Company told the Union that the Temporary workers' agreement was acceptable except for the final sentence of clause 8. This had not been discussed with the Company and seemed to have been added on later.
The Company claims that due to the nature of its business it is necessary that they maintain a flexible manufacturing capability and the recruitment of temporary employees is an important factor. The Company met with the Union on the 27th February, 2001. At the meeting the Union sought the removal of clause 4 of the agreement. The Company would not agree to the removal of clause 4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A number of conciliation conferences
were held. As no agreement was reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 22nd March, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 26th April, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is concerned that the Company is not adhering to the terms of the existing agreement.
2. The Company is refusing to maintain the 10% balance between permanent and temporary workers.
3. Lay-offs were announced days before the Union had arranged a general meeting to recommend acceptance of the advisory services report on industrial relation's in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has agreed to reduce from 18 months to 15 months the qualification period for automatic transfer to permanent status.
2. Due to the nature of it's business, it is essential that the company maintain a flexible manufacturing capability and the recruitment of temporary employees is necessary.
3. The Company has tried over a four year period to negotiate an agreement with the Union concerning temporary employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that a proposed temporary workers' agreement was put forward by the Union on 26th February, 2001, which, subject to some clarification, is acceptable to the company. However, due to other developments the Union is no longer prepared to support this proposal.
Having examined the proposal in question and in particular Clause 4, which deals with the recruitment of permanent from the temporary pool, the Court feels that the proposal as submitted would effectively safeguard the interests which the Union are seeking to protect. The Court also notes management's assurances that seniority will be a major factor to be taken into account in making appointments from the temporary staff.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Union's proposal of 26th February be accepted in settlement of the present dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th May, 2001______________________
MO'C/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Marian O'Connell, Court Secretary.