FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NEXANS IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment of allowance for use of equipment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures copper cables for the energy market and employs 110 staff in its Athlone operation. In 1991, an allowance of £2.00 (currently €2.53) was negotiated for insulation operators in recognition of skill and responsibility exercised by them in the performance of their duties. The allowance was also extended to some other employees for the same reasons. The specific claim involved concerns a number of workers who are seeking the allowance for operating "ink jet" machinery. The Company has refused to pay them the allowance. In 2003, the Union's industrial engineer carried out an investigation into the matter concerned and issued a report which, the Union claims, the Company ignored despite stating that it would "respect" the report. An unofficial dispute took place resulting in a loss of pay and production. On the 17th of December, 2003, the Company had issued protective notice to all employees.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st of March, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Industrial relations in the Company are very poor. In 2003, the workers had to go on a 3 week strike before the Company would pay the final phase of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
2. The Company has ignored the industrial engineer's report. The Union has been willing to negotiate at all times with the Company but these offers have been rejected.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is pleading inability to pay the claim under the Sustaining Progress agreement. The Company has suffered gross and net losses since 1998. (details supplied to the Court).
2. The workers concerned have refused to operate the ink jet machines, thereby foregoing sales in the order of €1.5 million per annum. In 1992, both sides agreed the introduction and use of ink jet printers as part of a rationalisation agreement at that time.
3. Workers are required to work under protest as provided for in the Company/Union agreement. This has not happened in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that industrial relations within this employment are particularly bad and that many of the issues which have arisen are manifestations of this fundamental problem. In the Court's view, this has also lead to an apparent inability to address relatively minor and straightforward issues such as the claim presently before the Court. The Court is of the view that before dealing with the current claim it is imperative that the parties address this underlying issue as a matter of urgency.
The Court recommends that an in-depth audit of industrial relations practices and procedures within the employment should be undertaken by external experts nominated by the parties. The terms of reference of this review should be agreed between the parties and should include the making of recommendations on the introduction of a partnership model for the future conduct of industrial relations. The possibility of introducing new procedures for resolving minor claims internally and for ensuring the maintenance of industrial peace should also be examined.
The Company and the Union should each nominate one external expert who would jointly carry out this exercise. It should commence as soon as practicable and should be completed within four weeks. The report should be furnished to the parties and to the Court. The costs associated with this exercise should be discharged by the Company. On receipt of the report of the external experts, the Court will consider the present claim.
In the interim, the Court urges that normal working be maintained and that neither party engage in any form of industrial or coercive action on any issue.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd March, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.