FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TIPPERARY CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY LIMITED - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Refusal to maintain manning levels.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Co-operative is located in Tipperary Town. The dispute before the Court concerns manning levels in the maintenance area and the replacement by the Co-op of permanent craft workers with contract workers.
The Creamery employed seven permanent craftspeople in 1980. However, three craft workers left the Co-op between 1998 and 1999. The Co-op filled the first vacancy on a contract basis and sought to fill the remaining vacancies in a similar manner. This was unacceptable to the Union, which is seeking the appointment of permanent craft workers only. The issue could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, held on the 24th of July, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st of August, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Clonmel on the 11th of December, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Co-op is embarking on a policy of 'casualisation' of the craft workforce with the loss of permanent craft posts.
2. There is a need for investment in training and up-skilling in order that a more efficient use of plant can be achieved and competitiveness maintained. This can only be done through the appointment of the necessary complement of permanent craft workers.
3. The Union put a compromise proposal to the Co-op that the number of permanent craftspeople be brought up to six and that an apprentice be employed in each trade.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A detailed review of structures in the maintenance department took place in late 1997. Discussions with the Union on the general reorganisation of the maintenance area, encompassing work practices and manning levels, had reached the point where all issues relating to practices and manning levels had been agreed, but broke down on the issue of pay levels.
2. The Co-op was in discussion with the Union when the first vacancy arose and it would have been illogical to make a permanent appointment in the light of the revised manning levels under discussion. The Co-op was, however, prepared to maintain the complement of seven posts by employing contract workers.
3. When two further vacancies arose, the Co-op was prepared to fill the first vacancy with a permanent appointee and to fill the two latest vacancies by employing contract workers. It was the Co-op's view that an understanding had been reached with the Union that this was a holding situation enabling discussions to continue.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear from the submissions of the parties that significant common grounds exist between them on the proposed reorganisation of the maintenance department. On the basis that the discussions referred to in the Company's letter of 22nd November, 2001, will be recommenced and brought to finality without further delay, the Court recommends that the present dispute be resolved on the following basis:
1. The manning level should be five craftspersons. The Company should also agree to engage a sixth craftsperson, who should be employed initially on a 12 month contract, after which the position will be reviewed between the parties. This person could specialise on projects if necessary.
2. The Court notes that the Company wish to maintain flexibility in their ongoing employment commitments in view of the proposals to reorganise work arrangements in the maintenance department. In the Court's view, the Union's proposal to engage apprentices would not be incompatible with that objective, given the fixed term commitment inherent in a contract of apprenticeship.
In addition to the recommendation at 1 above, the Court recommends that the Company commit to engaging one apprentice in 2002 and a further apprentice in 2003.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th January, 2002______________________
G.B./B.R.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.