Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87375 Case Number: LCR11268 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HB ICE CREAM - and - ITGWU;FWUI |
Claim for compensation for de-manning of some machines.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
particularly in view of the Company's undertaking that all first
and second year temporary workers will not suffer losses as a
result of its introduction, the Court recommends that the
Company's offer made at conciliation on 6th March, 1987 be
accepted. The Court further recommends that the parties commence
negotiations directly as how best to alleviate the losses of
temporaries who in their first and second years in the future will
be affected by the proposals.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87375 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11268
CC87326 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11268
Parties: HB ICE CREAM
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim for compensation for de-manning of some machines.
Background:
2. There are 47 permanent production staff and 50 temporary staff
affected by this dispute. In recent years the Company has been
updating its plant and the introduction of new machinery into the
factory was covered by an arbitrator's findings. This gave a lump
sum payment of #900 per employee, plus the consolidation of 5% of
bonus into basic over a period of time. Employees presently earn
a 25% bonus at standard performance rising to 40% at 120
performance. Indirect employees receive a 21% bonus. The
introduction of a number of automated devices has led to a
proposal for the reduction of manning levels. The Unions contend
that the changes would, in most cases, lead to increased work
loads for those remaining because some work would remain on the
semi-automated processes, requiring some workers to take on the
additional duties. Two proposals emanated from the Unions with a
view to achieving compensation for this:
(i) A 5% increase in basic earnings combined with a two per
cent reduction in bonus i.e. from 25% to 23% of basic.
(ii) A gearing of the levels of bonus for different levels
of performance. The Unions suggested that for
performances between 75% and 90% that bonus represent
.8% of basic pay, 1% of basic pay per percentage point
between 90% and 110%, and .5% of basic pay for every
percentage point above 110% up to the existing limit of
120%.
These proposals were not acceptable to the Company.
The Company's counter-proposal was rejected by the
Union. On 25th February, 1987, the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 6th March, 1987.
At the conference the Company made an improvement on
its offer, the nett effect of which would be to
increase basic wages by 6%, while consolidating 5% of
the old bonus into the basic wage. The Company were
asked for and gave an assurance that there would be no
change in the Company's policy on the employment of
temporary workers. Some other changes in the detail of
the Company's proposals were also agreed at the
conciliation conference. A meeting of Union members on
7th April, 1987, rejected the Company's proposals. At
a meeting between the Company and the Unions on 29th
April, 1987, it was agreed to refer the matter to the
Court for investigation and recommendation. On 11th
May, 1987, this referral took place. A Court hearing
took place in Dublin on 2nd June, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (a) The changes introduced by the Company will have two
major effects. It will increase the work loads of
those remaining in the Company, and it will lead to a
reduction of approximately 12% in the Company's Labour
costs. In addition the Company will gain from the
lowering of 1st and 2nd year temporary staff earnings
and the increased efficiencies.
(b) The Unions' proposals would have only involved a small
percentage increase in earnings overall. They would
have represented at most only one-third of the benefits
of the productivity earnings going to the workforce.
(c) Both proposals from the Union side seek application of
adjustments across the board with no exclusion of first
and second year temporary staff. The earnings of 1st
and 2nd year temporaries are already on a lower scale
to that of permanent people. The Company's proposal,
which have been over-whelmingly rejected, would extend
further the differences and lead to an average
reduction of 5% on earning power. In view of the gains
which will accrue to the Company the Unions urge the
Court to recommend in favour of the Unions' position.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) There are substantial benefits for the workers
concerned under the Company's proposal and these
benefits are even more substantial if account is taken
of the fact that a considerable amount of overtime is
worked and this would in future be based on the new
basic rates (details supplied to the Court).
(ii) In addition of course, the Company's offer improves
basic earnings on shift rate and provides, in the long
run, enhanced pensions. The Company is convinced that
its proposals are fair, right thinking, and even
generous, and requests the Court to recommend
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
particularly in view of the Company's undertaking that all first
and second year temporary workers will not suffer losses as a
result of its introduction, the Court recommends that the
Company's offer made at conciliation on 6th March, 1987 be
accepted. The Court further recommends that the parties commence
negotiations directly as how best to alleviate the losses of
temporaries who in their first and second years in the future will
be affected by the proposals.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
15th July, 1987. Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.