FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 2012 PARTIES : MEADWESTVACO HEALTHCARE PACKAGING LIMITED - AND - IRISH PRINT GROUP (SIPTU) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Registered Employment Agreement (Printing Industry City and County of Dublin).
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by SIPTU that the Company is in breach of the Registered Employment Agreement for the Printing Industry.
The Employer's position is that because of its location and activity, it comes under the scope of the Registered Employment Agreement but it does not accept that there is any validity to the complaint.
On the 29th May, 2012 SIPTU referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th November 2012.
DECISION:
This is a complaint by the Irish Print Group SIPTU (hereafter "the Complainant") that Meadwestvaco Healthcare Packaging Limited, 84 – 85 Lagan Road, Dublin Industrial Estate, Glasnevin, Dublin 11 (hereafter "the Respondent") alleging a breach of the Printing Industry (City and County of Dublin) Registered Employment Agreement (hereafter "the REA") made pursuant to Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946, as amended ("the Act").
The substance of the complaint is that the Respondent has failed or neglected to comply with the said Agreement under Rule Number 2 concerning Rates of Pay by its failure to pay General Operatives in accordance with the appropriate rates of pay as set out in the Schedule to the REA. The Union maintained that the workers covered by this complaint can be described as coming within the category “Transport: Senior Rate” as described in the Schedule attached to the REA. The Union submitted that historically the rate which is called “Transport: Senior Rate” was commonly understood to refer to workers represented by the Irish Transport and General Workers Union (now SIPTU) working within the printing industry and carrying out general operative work. The Union maintained that this was generally understood and accepted among the parties involved in the industry.
The Respondent accepted that it is a firm covered by the REA and that it is accurately described as a “Commercial House” as described within the REA, however, it disputed the relevance of the REA to the workers concerned stating that the job categories concerned - Feeder, Off-Loading and Break-Out Operatives are not categories covered within the Schedule attached to the REA. It held that the work carried out by the Operatives in question is not covered by any job category in the REA, either explicitly or implicitly. It stated that all three jobs are categorised as low-skill with very short training time. The work they carry out does not impinge on the product or product quality.
Under Rule 1 of the REA, “Scope” it refers to the different classes of workers:-
- “The classes of workers covered by this Agreement are workers engaged during the whole or part of their time in the City and County of Dublin in the production of printed matter (other than newspaper offices) by plant and equipment in normal use in commercial printing establishments together with ancillary workers as set out in the attached schedule and their employers.”
The Schedule contains details of rates of pay and payments for double day and night shifts of identifiable classes of workers and this list includes “Transport: Senior Rate” but no definition of the latter is provided. The REA provides no assistance in defining the meaning to be ascribed to the term “Transport: Senior Rate”.
The Court notes the discrepancy between the parties concerning the understanding of the term “Transport: Senior Rate”. The Court accepts that the REA is intended to bring about a situation where a trade union affected by an REA can seek to ensure that the terms of the REA are universally applied within the industry or sector to which the Agreement relates. This Court has consistently held that an REA is an industrial relations agreement that was drafted as such and accordingly should be interpreted purposively rather than in accordance with the normal rules of statutory interpretation and which as a matter of good industrial relations practice should be observed and applied.
In a case concerning the interpretation of the Electrical Contracting Industry REA this Court held inAscal Electrical Limited v TEEUINT071 as follows:-
- “The Agreement should be construed in accordance with the ordinary rules of contractual construction (see Adams & Others v British Airways plc [1995] IRLR 577). The object of the process is to ascertain the intention of the parties to the REA and where there is ambiguity to ascribe to it the meaning intended by its authors. The Agreement was drafted by industrial relations practitioners and is addressed to employers, employees and their trade unions. Moreover, the primary role in interpreting the agreement is assigned to this Court and not to a Court of law. This indicates an intention on the part of the Oireachtas that such agreements should be constructed in a way that takes account of industrial relations realities and that words and expressions should be given the meaning which they would bear in an industrial relations setting.”
In ordinary parlance the word "transport" used in connection with rates of pay suggest a driver’s rate and “senior rate” suggests high ranking or superior but neither of which brings clarity to the complaint the subject-matter of this complaint as the categories of workers involved are Feeder, Off-Loading and Break-Out Operatives. The Union submitted to the Court that the colloquial use of the word “Transport” referred to workers who were members of a particular Union as distinct from skilled/craftworkers in the industry. Neither party presented the Court with data to clarify the meaning ascribed to “Transport: Senior Rate” as intended by the authors to the REA. In such circumstances, due to the lack of certainty, the Court is not satisfied that in referring to "Transport: Senior Rate" in the attached Schedule to the REA, a rate of pay can be interpreted as being enforceable to members of a specific trade union only.
Decision
Based on the submissions made and the evidence given, the Court is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been provided to substantiate the Union’s complaint that the Respondent was in breach of the REA. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that aprima faciecase has not been made and therefore the Court decides that the complaint is not well-founded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
17th December, 2012Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.