FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEO PHARMA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Company/Union Agreement (Fixed Term Workers).
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to a Company/Union Agreement concerning the internal advertisement of job vacancies. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim that a clause contained in a proposal drafted on foot of a Conciliation Conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission states that all available positions must be advertised internally. The Employer rejects the Union's position and agreement could not be reached between the parties. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th May, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd July, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The LRC proposal has been accepted by all parties and Clause 1 of the proposal must be implemented accordingly.
2. It is the Union's position that all jobs must be advertised internally with weight given for service and experience.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that its long-standing practice is to advertise only those vacancies with an expected duration of three months or more.
2. The Employer disagrees with the Union's interpretation of Clause 1 of the LRC proposal. As a result it is not in a position to concede the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is asked to interpret the meaning of the following clause in an agreement concluded by the parties.
“It is agreed between the parties that all jobs will be advertised internally and weight will be given to service and experience”
The Union argues that the term “all jobs will be advertised internally” should be read literally to mean “all jobs” irrespective of how they arise or of their anticipated duration.
Management argues that such an interpretation would be excessively restrictive and would compromise its capacity to function efficiently. It argues that the term “all jobs” must be read in conjunction with the Company’s policy documents that define a job as a vacancy that will subsist for more than three months.
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties the Court finds that the words in the agreement are sufficiently clear and precise to be read independently of any other document. The term “all jobs” used in the agreement must be given its ordinary meaning as contended for by the Union in this case.
The Court so interprets the agreement and recommends accordingly.
The Court notes that the Agreement so interpreted does not adequately meet the needs or aspirations of either side. The Union side is seeking certainty around job diversity, training opportunities and promotional progression for its members while the Company is seeking flexibility in the manner in which it fills short term vacancies.
In that context the Court further recommends that the parties engage with a view to reaching a revised agreement that better meets these respective concerns.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
23rd July 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.