FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH CEMENT LIMITED - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Displaced Quarry Personnel.
BACKGROUND:
2. 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 14 September 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on30 November 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- The Company is acting in an unreasonable manner by asking Workers to choose to stay in the yard or move to the quarry without informing the Workers as to the monetary value associated with each option.
- The cost implications involved in acceding to the Unions claim is notprohibitive to the Company.
- The differential proposed by the Company will be eroded over time due to incremental progression ofexisting quarry workers.
2. The current terms and conditions of the Quarry Productivity Agreement have been significantly enhanced from the original Agreement.
3. The concept of paying people differently for the same role is not in keeping with Company practices.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute relates to 10 quarry Workers who wish to exercise their right in line with the “Croke report” to return to work in the quarry. The “Croke report” stated “In the event that the parties cannot reach specific agreement as local level in respect to the terms and conditions of returning to quarry operatives it shall fall to the facilitator to issue a determination”. Both parties informed the Court that the practise had evolved that they bring issues arising from the report to the Workplace Relations Commission and ultimately if not resolved to the Labour Court rather than the facilitator as set out in the report and that was both their preferred option.
The Union on behalf of the ten Workers is seeking that they be allowed return to the quarry on their current grade and point on incremental scale and that they be allowed retain that.
The Union does not dispute that the terms and conditions of staff working in the quarry had been restructured around the time of the “Croke report” with some subsequent improvements later achieved by the Union. They acknowledged that the return of some or all of these ten Workers would result in the displacement of current Workers. The issue for the Workers is that they do not know which grade in the quarry they are going to be placed on if they decided to return. The Employer has stated that this would only become known once they had confirmed their intention to return. The grade they will be placed on will have an impact on their potential earnings.
The Employer’s position is that they have done calculation for each of the Workers indicating the financial impact of being placed on each of the grades. It is the Employer’s contention that regardless of what grade any of the ten Workers are placed on they will have higher earnings than they currently have. The Employer reaffirmed its proposal that the Workers would stay on their current incremental point which in all cases is the last point of their current pay scale. The Employer highlighted to the Court that the difficulty with identifying the precise grade each of the workers would be placed on stems from the fact that they will have to displace other staff and there is not currently within the quarry area a match between the number in each grade that exists and the potential number of Workers seeking to return to that grade.
The Court, having carefully read the submissions of the parties and listened to the oral arguments on the day, recommends that each of the 10 quarry Workers seeking to return to the quarry should be facilitated with an offer at or as close to as possible their current grade. In the event no role is available at their current grade at time of transfer to the quarry they should retain their grade for a period of 12 months from date of transfer. During that 12 month period they should have first refusal on any vacancy that arises in their grade. Where more than one person is seeking to transfer to a grade it should be done in line with normal practise in the quarry. After 12 months the grade of the role that the Worker is performing will become their substantive grade. This Recommendation to be implemented in a timely manner.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
14th December 2018______________________
JDDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.