FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COILLTE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Improved piece rate, provision of huts and provision of water.
BACKGROUND:
2. Coillte was established in 1989 as a commercial state Company charged with responsibility for conducting state forestry and associated business on a commercial basis. The dispute concerns a decision by Coillte to introduce a new method of planting trees involving a treatment known as "dipped plants" which, it is claimed, is a more effective method of protecting young trees against the weevil parasite. Previously, trees were planted and then sprayed with a protective substance. The Union believes that the new method will have significant health and safety concerns, and will also bring about a change in the working pattern which will result in a loss of earnings for its members. There are approximately 450 workers involved, 300 of whom work on a piece-rate system. The Company offered to increase the piece-rate by €5 per thousand trees planted but this was rejected by the Union which is seeking a pay increase of 40%. The Company proposed a 3-month trial period to assess the impact of its proposals.
- There are three elements to the Union's claim:-
- The provision by the employer of a plentiful daily supply of clean water for the daily decontamination required.
- The provision of movable huts to assist workers to avail of breaks away from decontaminated equipment.
- A proper and significant adjustment in the Piece Rate to allow for time and earnings lost in the new process.
The employer's case is that conceding the Union's claim would be financially unsustainable as it is already making only marginal profits.
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 December, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of May, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following two meetings in October and November, 2005, the workers overwhelmingly rejected the employer's proposal because of the inadequacy of the protective measures proposed and the increase of €5 per thousand in the piece rate.
2. Workers will need to take an average 5 breaks per day. This involves washing down their protective suits before they can safely avail of taking breaks and this requires a plentiful supply of fresh water. The employer's proposal that each worker carry their own supply is inadequate. It is the employer's responsibility to supply clean running water at each site.
3. Workers need to protect themselves against inclement weather or to avail of a meal break. Only a small number of sites have huts in place. The Union is seeking huts at all sites and believes that the cost would not be great.
4. The current schedule of piece rate per thousand trees planted ranges from €70 to €130. Management's proposal would mean a serious loss of earnings in terms of time lost, and its offer of a €5 increase per thousand trees is well below what the Union feels is warranted.
COILLTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The move to pre-treated plants has been prompted by commercial and environmental considerations. The pre-treatments cost is in excess of €800,000.
2. The Company will supply bulk water to the majority of sites and will also supply 10-litre containers to each individual. Payment would be provided for in the additional piece rate to take account of the carriage of water.
3. The cost of providing huts on site would be approximately €82,000 per annum. This would mean that rather than delivering any savings there would be a significant addition to the planting costs.
4. The cost of planting with Coillte staff is already uncompetitive when compared with legitimate contract alternatives. Conceding the Union's claim would threaten the long-term security of employment for the workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company's plan to change its system of planting trees on a country wide basis using pre-treated plants has been under consideration for some considerable time and was communicated to the Union in December, 2003. While a number of issues surrounding this initiative have been resolved between the parties, the outstanding issues were referred to the Court, these are as follows:-
(a) provision of water on site for decontamination
(b) provision of huts on site
(c) improved piece rate for new system of working
In response to each element of the claim, the Company gave details to the Court on its proposals to address the Union's concerns. These included a commitment to supply bulk water containers to planting sites, wherever it is reasonable and practical to do so. It expected to be able to service approximately 90% of sites. It offered to supply protective suits and suit coverings and a small secure shed for hanging suits. Furthermore, the Company offered to increase the planting rate by €5 per 1000 pre-treated plants and to review the earnings of those concerned at the end of an initial 3 month period to establish any negative impact on the earnings; during the first 4 weeks the Company offered "protected earnings"- holiday rate of pay.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the new system of planting should commence without delay and should be operated for a trial period of three months, in order to assess its impact on the piece rate system and on the working conditions, including the health and safety considerations of forestry workers.
The Court recommends that during this trial period all logistical arrangements connected with this new system should be assessed as to the adequacy and practicality of the new working conditions (e.g. wearing the protective suiting, gowning / degowning, decontamination) and any implications it may have on the piece rate earnings.
During this three-month period the Court recommends that "protective earnings " should be paid to each of the workers concerned.
Any residual issues incapable of agreement following local discussions may be referred back to the Labour Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th March, 2006______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.