LCR22296

1. Alleged breach of collective agreement.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute concerns a craft contractors agreement and manning level agreement. 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 2 September 2020, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27 October 2020.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union stated that there is an agreed headcount on the site for 23 craft, 15 mechanical and 8 electrical contractors. This number has reduced by 3 due to reasons including promotions and death.

2. An interim agreement was entered into by both parties making arrangements to operate with 3 vacancies. Options have been put forward by the Union to resolve this situation and the union view is that the company has not engaged in a meaningful manner. .


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer stated that an agreement had operated which provided for remaining craft workers to operate with three positions less than the number provided for in the collective agreement.

2. Subsequently, the parties reached a new agreement which provided that the 3 vacant positions would be filled on Temporary fixed term Contracts. The Union withdrew from this agreement and it has not been implemented. The opportunity to recruit for three temporary positions has now been lost due to a globally mandated recruitment ban introduced by the company in recent months.

RECOMMENDATION :

The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

There is no dispute between the parties that a collective agreement is in place since 2014 which makes provision for a staffing level of 23 craftspersons. Neither does there appear to be a dispute that, for various reasons, the agreed staffing level has not been maintained at all times since that date. An agreement was entered into in 2017 which addressed some aspects of the difficulties caused by the fact that the 2014 agreement was not at that stage being adhered to.

In October 2019 the company announced that part of the site would be closed and that the closure would lead to 240 redundancies including of some craft roles. Engagement in relation to the 2014 agreement took place in November 2019 and December 2019. At that point a total of twenty craftspersons were employed.

An agreement was reached between the parties with the assistance of the WRC on 23^rd December 2019 which provided for an increase in the craft team by a total of three persons who would be employed on a fixed term contract basis.

The current dispute arises from the fact that the December 2019 agreement has never been implemented. The lack of implementation reflects the fact that the Trade Union took the view that while a central understanding behind the December 2019 was that the company was under a global mandate to make no permanent appointments; it appointed approximately ten people on a permanent basis to positions represented by another Trade Union shortly after conclusion of the December 2019 agreement. The Trade Union therefore opposed the implementation of the December 2019 agreement.

The parties have engaged extensively on the matter since December 2019, including with the assistance of the WRC. The parties, in the course of those engagements, made various propositions for the resolution of the dispute.

The Court notes that the current position of the company is as follows:

• 
  • The appointment of three persons to fill three positions on a temporary Novartis fixed-term contract basis in the NRL craft group (in a shift capacity) after the global recruitment embargo is lifted.

  • Engagement in meaningful discussions with the Trade Union with regard to the contractual status of the positions in June 2022 in line with available business demand and information at the time.

  • The release the requirement for craftspersons to work their banked hours during 2019 and 2020.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
H.M.	______________________
20 November 2020	Chairman