FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KEMEK LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Use of outside Contractors to meet peak demand
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to the Company's proposal to use outside contractors during peak periods. The Company is involved in the production of industrial explosives and the dispute relates to its Box Truck Drivers. The Company's position is that during peak periods it requires more drivers and if necessary assigns its General Operatives to perform such duties.
It contends that this causes production losses on the factory floor and could best be resolved by using outside contractors if necessary.
The Union contends that its members have always carried out the requirements even during peak periods and that if contractors were used, it would inevitably lead to a loss of earnings and eventual job losses.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 10th July 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th August, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management's proposal to use outside contractors during peak periods will inevitably lead to losses of earnings and eventually job losses.
2 The workers have always carried out all duties required of them during peak periods in the past.
3Management did not negotiate on this issue during the negotiation of a Company/Union agreement in 2007.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The reality of Management's proposal is that there will be insignificant change to the current situation. It will simply be a more efficient way of dealing with peak periods going forward.
2 The implementation of the proposal will provide adequate cover for sick leave and annual leave absences in the future, without the subsequent knock on loss of production that currently exists.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that the Company's proposal to engage contractors in the limited circumstances described to the Court is reasonable. The Court notes that the Union's objections to the proposal relate to the effect which it may have on the interests of relief drivers and its perception that the practice would ultimately be extended beyond what is initially proposed.
In the Court's view these concerns are capable of being assuaged. In that regard the Court recommends that the Union should agree in principle to the Company's proposal. The parties should then negotiate and put in place a protocol setting out the limited circumstances in which contractors will be used and providing appropriate assurances concerning the maintenance of a core number of directly employed drivers. The protocol should also provide for the observance of appropriate employment standards by the contractors.
In relation to the relief drivers the Court further recommends that the parties negotiate an appropriate lump sum compensation package to take account of financial loss accruing from the engagement of contractors.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th September 2008______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.