FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BASF IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Company/Union Agreement on a standby allowance for craft workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to the interpretation of a Company/Union Agreement on a standby allowance for craft workers.
The Union said a mechanical call-in system has existed onsite for over 30 years. The agreed standby allowance was maintained until the November 2016 shutdown when it was unilaterally withdrawn from Mechanical and Electrical personnel.
The Company said it is clear that the agreement implies that for someone to be on standby outside of normal working hours (of a crafts worker), it still requires somebody else (e.g. the plant/production) to be working their normal hours.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28 February 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14 June 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company’s decision to unilaterally and arbitrarily change the operation and application of the Call-In Service Agreement resulted in financial loss to the Union members.
2. The Company should continue to operate the Agreement as it has done for the past 30 years and any financial loss arising from its actions should be paid to the Union members.
3. Further adherence by the Company to this Agreement is the only way to avoid any further disputes around this matter and avoid any further financial losses to the Union members.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The standby allowance was agreed by the parties. It was agreed that this allowance would only be paid in compensation for a time that a craft worker was actually on standby. It is distinct from an element of an individual’s salary.
2. The Employer has acted rationally and reasonably at all times in relation to this issue. The individuals affected were notified in advance that the site would shut down and as such, that they would not be required in advance to carry out any work, including their standby duties.
3. Employees who are in receipt on a standby allowance should only receive this allowance during a time they are actually on standby.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court understands that circumstances in the plant led to situations in December 2015, October 2016 and December 2016 where the entire plant was shut down for a period and all staff were placed on annual leave. The Court understands that such a situation had not occurred before on the site.
The Court notes that the parties concluded an agreement in September 2016 which addressed a range of issues. The Company believes that this agreement dealt with the matter before the Court. The Trade Union also believes that the September agreement addressed the matter before the Court. The difficulty arises from the fact that the parties interpret the September agreement in different ways and that difference of interpretation is at the centre of the current dispute.
The Court takes the view that it is unsustainable to seek to perpetuate a system of standby during periods when the plant requires no standby cover. Similarly it is unsustainable to have in place a situation whereby persons who are purported to be on annual leave are in fact on standby.
The Court has considered the history of this matter and concludes that the parties have not effectively addressed by agreement the matter of standby cover when the plant is ‘on holidays’ / shut down. In those circumstances the Court recommends that the arrangements which were applied in December 2015 should be applied to the shut downs in October 2016 and December 2016. The Court also recommends that the parties engage to agree arrangements to apply into the future, through procedures as necessary, in such a manner as to ensure the process of engagement is concluded before the occurrence of any further shut down on the site.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
26 June, 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.