FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOC GASES IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Manning levels.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to manning levels. The Company asserts that it must maintain the right to not replace an employee that ceases employment with the Company by means of retirement, resignation, redeployment or promotion, amongst other naturally-recurring events. The Company is of the view that in the majority of situations in line with business needs there will be a necessity to back-fill such vacancies, however, the definitive decision to do so must rest with management. The Union rejects this and contends that the Company are acting in breach of an agreement in place between the Company and the Union covering the issue of manning levels. The Union further contends that should the Company wish to change the agreement on manning levels it must be done through negotiation and agreement. The dispute was previously before the Labour Court in 2009 and was the subject of Labour Court Recommendation No. 19699 which recommended further discussions between the parties. Subsequent discussions followed under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and a number of Conciliation Conferences were held.
As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th January 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Labour Court hearings took place on 27th July and 19th August, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that there are agreed procedures in place and that management are acting in breach of these procedures.
2.The Union does not accept that manning levels should be at the discretion of management only.
3. The Union is seeking negotiation and discussion on manning levels in every instance of a vacancy arising.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management contends that binding manning agreements are unreasonable and are no longer workable in the business environment in which the Company operates.
2. Management asserts that the majority of vacancies arising in the future will be filled, however, this must be based on business needs at the time.
3. Management will continue to consult with the Union on the subject of manning levels, however, the final decision to fill vacancies must be at the sole discretion of management.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue of manning levels in the Company was the subject of LCR 19699 in which the Court upheld previous manning level agreements, however, going forward it recommended that the parties should engage in discussions within the Company/Union procedures on manning levels for the future.
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case. The Court notes the progress made since the last hearing and regrets the fact that it was not possible to reach agreement on all matters. On the outstanding issue, the Court takes the view that the Company must be in a position to match its staff numbers to the volume of business it transacts. Where a staff member leaves the Company's employment, for any reason, management must be in a position to determine whether or not the vacancy thereby created needs to be filled and, if so, in what capacity.
In arriving at any such determination management should invite the views of the relevant trade union and take them into account to the maximum extent possible consistent with maintaining the viability and optimum management of the business.
Where the Union disagrees with any such decision it should refer the dispute through the normal industrial relations procedures. In the interim management should proceed with the implementation of its best judgement on the matter.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th September 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.