FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OTIS LIFTS - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. New agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. Otis Ireland Limited is part of a multinational lift company that supplies and installs new lifts to the Construction Industry and offers maintenance and upgrades to its customers. Otis Ireland Limited has 72 field employees, 25 staff members in their Dublin and Cork offices and resident engineers based in Galway, Cork and Limerick. The increase in the number of competitors in the Irish market, some from low cost Asian countries, has led the Company to seek to introduce new methods to improve installation efficiency, and to clearly define Key Performance indicators.
In January 2006 a new generic agreement was proposed and it has since become a blueprint for the industry which can be tailored to meet the requirements of each individual Lift Company, to date three Companies have signed the agreement, with addendums for instance on application of on-call, country money, pensions and sick pay schemes. However the Company has a small number of issues of dispute with the Union still outstanding.
The dispute could not be resolved at local 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 June, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th September, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The guaranteed two hours overtime every evening whether worked or not, while on country work should not be withdrawn as it makes it more attractive to the Workers involved. Equally for similar reasons on-call arrangements currently in operation should not be varied.
2. The proposal to allow Engineers to work alone at a lift-shaft is unacceptable on health and safety grounds and is considered unsafe and dangerous.
3.Staggered working arrangements should continue on a voluntary basis only, as it may not suit every Worker for family-friendly reasons.
4. Disciplinary procedures as presently practised have not caused any difficulties and therefore should continue as before.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Some country construction sites now close at 18.00 hours and in the present economic and competitive market it is unrealistic to expect an employer to pay for overtime not worked, however overtime will be on offer to each Engineer when available. On-call allowance will be increased by 26% and then linked to the Consumer Price Increase.
2. The requirement for Lift Engineers to be Electricians should be reviewed as should the need to have shared help on multiple shaft sites.
3. The Company would have to give a lot of consideration before entering into a binding agreement for 5 years that might not reflect future changes in the Lift Industry without the ability to renegotiate
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and recommends as follows in respect of the points of difference, as identified in the Union's submission:-
Country Work.
The Court recommends that where workers are assigned to sites away from home a minimum of two hours overtime should continue to be provided except when overtime is not available. However, all practical measures should be taken by the Company to obtain the facility to work this overtime. The Company should also put arrangements in place so as to ensure that work in such locations is fairly and equitably allocated. If the implementation of this change results in a diminution in the earnings of individuals, as measured over the 12 month period after its introduction, the parties should negotiate appropriate once-off compensation.
Staggered Working Arrangements.
The Court is satisfied that flexible arrangements should be available to the Company which are capable of meeting the exigencies of the business. The Court believes that in the first instance efforts should be made to obtain the degree of flexibility required on a voluntary basis. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company should seek individual volunteers who are prepared to stagger their start and finishing time. A panel should then be established from which the needs for out of hours working can be met. Those undertaking out of hours work should be paid the appropriate rates on the terms proposed by the Company.
Binding Adjudication.
The Court believes that where issues arise during the currency of the proposed agreement relating to the interpretation of the agreement or relating to the introduction or use of new working practices, procedures or technology, every effort should be made to resolve the mater by negotiation. If agreement cannot be reached the dispute should be submitted to third party adjudication, the outcome of which should be final and binding. The detailed provisions of the adjudication process should be agreed between the parties.
Introduction of PDA Equipment.
The Court notes that this equipment is not now available. When it becomes available the parties should have further discussions and, if necessary, the matter should be dealt with through the process recommended in the preceeding paragraph.
Shared Help.
The Court is satisfied that the Company's proposals for shared help arrangements at sites where more than one lift is being installed have merit. The Court also accepts that the Union has legitimate concerns relating to health and safety issues as well as the practical implication which may arise from the introduction of this proposal. The Court recommends that the parties should have further discussion with a view to addressing the Union's concerns and they should seek to establish an agreed basis upon which the Company's proposal could be introduced. These discussions should continue for a period of not more than four months after which the issue may be referred back to the Court.
On-Call.
The Court recommends that the Company proposal be accepted. If the introduction of the new arrangements results in a loss of earning for any individual measure over the first 12 months of its operation an appropriate once-off compensation package should be negotiated.
Disciplinary Procedure.
The current arrangements should be maintained.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th October, 2007______________________
JF.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.