FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ADM RINGASKIDDY, CORK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 2% under the revised terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the production of Citric Acid.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members
for the payment of the 2% under the revised terms of the Programme for Prosperity
and Fairness retrospective to the 1st of April, 2001. The Company is seeking the
continuous operation of the plant during the Christmas holiday period in return for this
payment. This is unacceptable to the Union.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation
conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, held on the 12th of
September, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 6th of November, 2001, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on the 12th of
December, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The compulsory continuous operation of the plant over the Christmas period is not a minor change in working conditions. It has always been a voluntary working arrangement and should continue as such.
2. The Union was prepared to enter discussions with the Company regarding working over the Christmas period with a view to reaching an agreement but the Company was unwilling to do so.
3. The 2% under the revised terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness should be paid unconditionally from the 1st of April, 2001.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The voluntary arrangement over the Christmas period has never been successful due to the lack of co-operation of the employees in the Recovery Department of the plant resulting in a loss of production which cannot be recovered.
2. The Company has the sole and exclusive right to decide the scheduling of production and the hours of shift operation as stated in the Company / Union Agreement.
3. The additional 2% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness is not a "given" and cannot be paid unconditionally.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the employer is not pleading inability to pay the 2% increase due under the revised PPF. Rather, the employer contends that the Union, on behalf of those associated with this claim, is refusing to provide adequate cover over the Christmas period, in contravention of a clear obligation under the collective agreement between the parties.
For its part, the Union contends that the employer is not entitled to require employees to work over Christmas but may only request them to do so on a voluntary basis.
In so far as there is a dispute between the parties as to the interpretation of the agreement, that should be resolved within the procedures prescribed by the agreement itself.
The Court notes that the agreement in question provides that questions relating to its interpretation should be referred to the Court for final adjudication. No such reference has been made to the Court.
The Court recommends that the disputed 2% should be paid from the due date. The parties should enter into immediate discussions with a view to providing the necessary cover in respect of Christmas working.
If the matter is not resolved by the 1st of March, 2002, the issue in dispute should be referred back to the Court for final adjudication.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th January, 2002______________________
G.B./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.