FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : VALEO VISION SYSTEMS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Proposed introduction of agency workers and proposed upper limit on the number of such workers the Company may use.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the Employer's use of agency workers in order to fill temporary positions within the Company. The Employer is seeking agreement to employ agency workers as and when required. The Union contends that there is no apparent requirement for the Company to employ agency workers. It further argues that the use of agency workers displaces permanent employees. The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Settlement proposals that emerged from the LRC were rejected in a ballot of the Union’s members. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th July, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd December, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer's use of agency workers displaces permanent employees.
2. There is no requirement for the Employer to hire agency workers to fill temporary positions that could be filled through the redeployment of direct employees.
3. The Union rejects the proposed percentage level of usage of agency workers as sought by the Employer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer has a business requirement to hire agency workers in order to operate competitively.
2. The Employer is seeking agreement for its proposed capped level of usage of agency workers.
3. The Employer requires the flexibility to hire agency workers in order to effectively meet demands in the market in which it operates.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the extensive submissions of both sides in this case the Court recommends that, with the help of an agreed Facilitator, the parties engage intensively over a period no greater than six weeks from the date of this Recommendation with a view to reaching a comprehensive agreement on all matters in dispute.
Issues, if any, outstanding between the parties at the end of that engagement should be referred back to the Court for a priority hearing following which the Court will issue a definitive Recommendation to the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
13th January 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.