FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LTD - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Implementation of new working patterns - Citywest Plant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court is over the amendment of rosters which determine working time and shift patterns. The Company maintains that changes to the roster under a current agreement can take place following consultation only. Previous practice required consultation and agreement to change. The Company maintains that changes to the roster can take place following consultation and not as was the ante current agreement practice that involvedconsultationandagreement.The Union does not agree with this.
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. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th December, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th February, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1The Union are arguing that the Company do not have the unilateral right to change or impose new rosters incorporating increased number of attendances at work for employees following consultation only.
2. Agreement has not yet been reached on roster change/cover change which the Company require.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 On 7th November 2000, the Union concluded an agreement that provided for new working terms and conditions for its new plant at Citywest. The agreement provided for the working time of the engineers and how change was to be approached as production/maintenance needs evolved.
2. The Company aimed to ensure that the new agreement would no longer act as inhibitors, and offered considerable benefits, not least greatly enhanced salaries, a £30,000 ex-gratia lump sum and pension indexation.
3. The Court is requested to determine the justification and veracity of the Company's standpoint, based on the wording of the agreement that change"within the parameters set out in the text of the Agreement, will occur subsequent to a consultation process only'
RECOMMENDATION:
The major difference between the parties surrounds the agreement arrived at when transferring to the new plant at Citywest. The Company are adamant that the new agreement did away with the requirement for "agreement" and was based on the principle "change following consultation only".
The Union have argued strongly that the understanding they had with management is being ignored and that the Union would not have agreed to a proposal that did not require their agreement to proposed changes.
The Court has considered the written and oral presentations and is satisfied based on the written documents that the Company's interpretation is correct. The Court therefore upholds the management position in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
2nd_March, 2004______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.