FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rehearing Arising From LCR18657
BACKGROUND:
2. This hearing arises from LCR No. 18657 which identified the need for further negotiations between the parties. After receipt of this Recommendation in July 2006 a number of meetings took place between the parties. There were nine outstanding issues, as set out in the Recommendation, that were discussed at these meetings. They came under the headings of Contractors, Previous Agreements, Maintenance Controller, Cross Skilling /Demarcation, Call-In/Telephone Contact, Craft Numbers, Bottling Plant Changeovers, Overtime and Autonomous Teams/Shifts/Technicians.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level. As outlined in LCR No. 18657 the dispute has been referred back to the Labour Court on 8th January 2007, for a rehearing in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20th April 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The issue of Shift Patterns, Craft numbers, Contractor usage etc., can only be addressed in the context of a four cycle shift with appropriate remuneration / cover arrangements and a work life balance.
2 The Company have removed the opportunities for skill enhancement, personal development and promotions from the Craftspeople with the elimination of the Maintenance Controller position, the dropping of its requirements for the creation of the Technician status and the abandonment of all training despite paying lip service to its importance.
3 The Craftpersons have been suffering the implications both financially and in regards to work life balance as a consequence of the Company's unilateral implementation of its agenda.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The majority of the changes required by the Company are covered in LCR No. 18343. This Recommendation was accepted by the Company whereby it would make an annual lump sum payment to the Fitters and Electricians. Unfortunately it was rejected by the Union.
2 The Company rewards its employees exceptionally well despite its significantly high cost base through a basic rate of pay in the top tier. Contributions are made towards health insurance by the Company. A profit share scheme, beer allowance and defined pension scheme are also in place.
3 The Company has already paid for the changes covering the training required under Cross Skilling / Demarcation by Fitters and Electricians and the Call in / Telephone Contact. There have been substantial job losses in manufacturing in the Cork region. It is essential that the Company do everything that they can to sustain the maximum number of jobs within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
For ease of reference the items in dispute are addressed in this Recommendation in the same order in which they are set out in the document contained at appendix 1 of the Company's submission, which corresponds to Document B in the Union's Submission. Furthermore, and for the avoidance of doubt, a reference in this Recommendation to the Company's position or the Union's position is a reference to the position attributed to the Company or to the Union, as the case may be in that document.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows: -
Contractors
The Court regards the Company position as reasonable and recommends that it be accepted.
Previous Agreements
The Court recommends that the Company's position be accepted subject to the qualification that the parties negotiate and agree a comprehensive agreement within three months. This should reflect existing agreements to the extent only to which they are compatible with the working agreement proposed by the Company.
Maintenance Controller
The Company should provide adequate training (to the extent to which it had not already been provided) and those who undertake the training should thereafter carry out the functions in which they have been trained.
Cross Skilling / Demarcation
The Company told the Court that it has withdrawn its proposal under this heading. Accordingly the matter is no longer in dispute.
Call In / Telephone Contact
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim under this heading.
Craft Numbers
This matter should be dealt with by the application of the relevant provisions of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2003.
Bottling Plant Changeovers
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim under this heading.
Overtime
The substance of the Union's claim was previously investigated by the Court and was the subject matter of a Court Recommendation. This matter should be disposed of on the basis previously recommended by the Court.
Autonomous Teams (A) / Shift (B) / Technicians (C)
The Court recommends that the Company's position on the shift patterns be accepted subject to any loss of earnings accruing from the changes being compensated for at twice the annual loss.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th May 2007______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.