FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : R & H HALL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Cleaning of silo
BACKGROUND:
2. R&H Hall is a subsidiary of the IAWS group and is involved in the importation and storage of animal feed and grain. It operates from a number of facilities but the dispute before the Court concerns the Alexandra Road facility in Dublin. In 2002, a Company/Union agreement resulted in a 21% pay increase for staff in return for greater flexibility in working arrangements and a history of overtime was consolidated in the basic pay. The Union contend that the silo (bin) cleaning was not included in the agreement, but was a separate issue which both parties indicated they would deal with independently. The Union are seeking substantial compensation for carrying out what they consider is a high risk task. The Company contend that the cleaning of silos is and always has been a fundamental part of the hygiene policy at the Company and is covered by the agreement.
- 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 14th April, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd August, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A risk assessment was carried out by a third party and the bin cleaning task was found to carry a risk of 18% fatality or serious injury could occur. In many locations around the world this is a specialised task carried out by experts solely trained to do this work.
2.It is a high risk function that has no relationship whatsoever to the normal day to day functions performed by the members on the site.
3.It is the Unions contention that the cleaning of silos was not mentioned in or part of the 2002 agreement. The agreement has been honoured in full by the members and their claim for a substantial payment for the cleaning is reasonable and justified. The Union is seeking a recommendation that takes account of the environment which it's members are expected to work while completing the task.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The comprehensive agreement was concluded to cover all operations at the facility including silo cleaning and it is incomprehensible to believe that the Company would have signed up to an agreement that excluded it, as this was a very regular requirement.
2. All historic payments including payments for the bin cleaning were included in the agreement, which provided for a significant salary increase for less hours worked and a range of bonuses for such matters as plant hygiene.
3. The fact that silo cleaning is not specifically mentioned in the agreement is because the agreement was based on a spirit of full flexibility and co-operation and did not spell out all the operations required. The Company has honoured all aspects of the agreement but the Union in taking unilateral action in refusing to carry out normal silo cleaning duties even under protest has failed to honour it's side of the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having heard the parties, the Court is satisfied that the cleaning of bins in silos is part of the workers' jobs.
The Court notes the differing views of the parties as to whether this matter was covered by the agreement of 2002.
In the absence of any definitive statement on its inclusion in the Agreement, the Court, believing this now to be an issue since the request for bin cleaning in 2004, recommends that the matter be further discussed between the parties (locally and/or at conciliation) with a view to agreeing a level of remuneration for the job going forward. It is for the parties to decide whether expert technical assistance might be required.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
12th August, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.