FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEGRAL BUILDING PRODUCTS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Ridge Tile Priming.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures roof slates in Athy, Co.Kildare. The Company has recently identified a process to address a quality issue with some tiles and has asked the ridge tile moulders to carry out this process. The process involves painting the ridge tiles with a special primer. The moulders declined to do the extra work without extra payment.
The Company refused any extra payment and a stand off situation developed with a threat of suspension or lay-offs and retaliatory industrial action.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd February 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th March 2010.
Following that hearing the parties met to discuss a proposal put forward by the Union concerning flexi-time. No agreement was reached and a second Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's proposal is to replace the current 1-hour lunch break(unpaid) with two 20 minute paid breaks in the day. This proposal would provide for an earlier finish on Friday if the weekly standard is produced; the earliest being 12 midday.
2. The Union have also suggested that the proposal be implemented for a trial period of 3 months approximately and then reviewed, without prejudice to either side.
3. The Union are also prepared to ring-fence the arrangement .
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believes that any change in the manning arrangements or pay scheme that may be possible in the moulding department is an issue entirely independent of the quality improvement change required in the moulding department.
2. The Union's proposal as framed undermines the entire basis of the Company's current pay scheme. The Company pay scheme is too valuable to be arbitrarily meddled with.
3. Having a different basic pay scheme in the moulding department will make it virtually impossible to retain the required level of flexibility and redeployment of moulders to other areas.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court's view the additional work required by the Employer does not involve major or significant change. the Court recommends that it should be performed by the Workers concerned with effect from the date proposed.
The Court also recommends that the parties have further discussions with a view to exploring the possibility of introducing a flexible working arrangement which maintains the integrity of the current 39 hour attendance requirement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th March, 2010______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.