FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GARRETT ENGINE ROOFING SYSTEMS & HONEYWELL ENGINES & SYSTEMS - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Company/Union Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. Garrett Engine Boosting Systems operates a foundry type plant in Waterford making parts for turbo chargers for the automotive industry. Honeywell Engines and Systems is located at the same industrial estate and runs a separate forge type operation producing aerospace components. Both operations are a single legal entity and are part of Honeywell International. They operate under a single Company/Union agreement.
The Company wants to operate the two plants on the basis of two separate Company/Union agreements with seniority being based within each plant rather than across the two plants. The Company considers that it is not tenable to manage as a single entity what are essentially two different plants with two types of operation and two different product markets.
The workers in both plants have rejected this proposal by a majority of five to one. They wish to retain seniority across the two plants.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of February, 2002, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of May, 2002, in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The flexibility of employees has been a feature of this Company over the years and has been of major benefit to the Company, with members transferring from Department to Department and between the plants periodically.
2. On the last occasion of downsizing in 1993, members transferred without any problems between the plants.
3. The Union could not stand over employees with long service being made redundant in one plant while the temporary employees continued to work in the other.
4. The outcome of the ballot of almost six hundred employees, voting by a five to one majority to secure the present arrangements, speaks for itself.
5. There is no reason why the Company and Union could not return to the negotiating table to resolve this issue.
6. The question of service and seniority is a major principle.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is now such a significant difference in the businesses, with the business metrics very different.
2. Since the 11th of September, 2002, the Aerospace business has seen significant decline, resulting in a modest transfer of employees.
3. The skills set at each plant are entirely different given that the products and their methods of production are totally different and separate. This expectation of mass transfers, because of the terms of the current single agreement, is the Company's major cause for concern.
4. In seeking to have a separate agreement covering each plant, the company are not ruling out the employment of employees from either plant in the other, where a) they are suitable, and b) there is a layoff in one and vacancies in the other.
5. Only the management and employees at each plant can decide on and do what is required to ensure the success of each of the businesses.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is conscious in this case of the changed situation in both plants since the Garrett Plant commenced operations in 1979 and the Engines and Systems plant in 1986, when the then agreement was extended to cover both facilities. While the single agreement may have worked well initially, it is clear to the Court that there are now significant differences in the businesses, with separate agreements now being discussed covering payment systems, which involves one plant considering the possibility of an annualised hours agreement.
In view of this, the Court recommends that in the interests of protecting overall employment, discussions should take place between the parties to agree a revised wording of Article 8 of the agreement, which would enable Lay-offs or Redundancies to be implemented separately in each plant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st May, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.