FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH DISTILLERS - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Review of the 1997 Maintenance Craft Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates three bottling facilities located in Bushmills, Co. Antrim, Fox and Geese in Dublin and North Mall in Cork. The plant in Cork currently employs thirty two workers including two craft workers in the maintenance area.
In October, 1997, a comprehensive agreement was entered into with the two craft workers and signed by all parties.
The Union on behalf of the craft workers is seeking a review of the 1997 agreement in relation to manning levels, equal application of pension benefits and issues relating to the operation of a second bottling line. The Union states that a review of the agreement has not taken place even though a commitment was given by the Company to monitor the operation of the agreement on an ongoing basis. The Company maintains there is no
basis for the Union's claim and that the workers concerned should operate the agreement which they signed in 1997.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st of July, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on the 7th of August, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A clear commitment was given by the Company that a monitoring and implementation body would meet on an ongoing basis to review the operation of the agreement. A review of the agreement has never taken place.
2. Two additional mechanical maintenance workers should be recruited to take account of the new bottling line. The workers concerned are under considerable pressure and stress due to the excessive workload.
3. The Company should enter into meaningful negotiations with the workers if it wishes to discuss rationalisation or to cease maintenance operations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since signing the agreement in 1997 the craft workers have consistently and systematically endeavoured to undermine and renege on the agreement.
2. The escalation of the present situation has led to a position where the workers concerned are having a severe impact on the operations at the plant.
3. The relationship between the Company and craft workers has been undermined and the Company sees no alternative but to negotiate a severance package with the workers concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
In all the circumstances of this case the Court believes that the most useful course is for the parties to negotiate an appropriate severance package for the employees concerned.
The parties should commence negotiations immediately and if agreement has not been reached by 1st December, 2002, the matter should be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th September, 2002______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.