Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86769 Case Number: LCR11068 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BRITTAS PLASTICS - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of seventeen workers for payment for rationalisation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and noting the trading position of the Company, does not
find it possible to recommend concession of the claim.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86769 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11068
CC861223 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11068
Parties: BRITTAS PLASTICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(NO 16 BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of seventeen workers for payment for
rationalisation.
Background:
2. The Company is part of the Clondalkin Group and is engaged in
the manufacture of plastic sacks. In early 1986 the Company
purchased a new extruder machine. On 30th May, 1986 a meeting
took place between the Union and the Company, at which the Company
presented a "Survival Package" which involved eight redundancies
(five in No. 16 Branch of the ITGWU and three in No. 2 Branch) to
achieve a saving of #100,000 per annum. A similar saving was to
be achieved by reduction of waste. Negotiations took place on the
subject of this rationalisation and in July, 1986 the workers
rejected the Company's rationalisation proposals. Following
further correspondence and meetings, the Union referred a claim
for a 15% increase in pay for rationalisation, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court, on 17th July, 1986. A conciliation
conference took place on 3rd October, 1986. No agreement was
reached and the parties agreed to a referral to a full hearing of
the Court. The matter was referred to the Court on 6th October,
1986. However, following the referral there was some confusion as
to the nature of the claim and as to what had been discussed at
conciliation. The Company was not agreeable to attend a Court
hearing. An official strike commenced on 8th December which
lasted for two weeks. Two further conciliation conferences were
held on 16th December, 1986 and 23rd December, 1986. The Company
agreed to have the matter referred to the Labour Court on the
basis of the October conciliation conference. A Court hearing
took place on 23rd February, 1986, the earliest date suitable to
the parties.
Union's Arguments
3 (i) Rationalisation took place to ensure that profits would
be maintained and increased. The Union believes that the
efforts being made by the workforce in these
circumstances should be rewarded.
(ii) The workforce has been reduced by thirteen as a result of
redundancies and natural wastage. This generates a
saving of #120,000 above the Company's target of
#200,000.
(iii) The workers have received no increase over the years
except their normal wage round increase. They are not a
militant workforce and have co-operated with management
on all occasions.
Company's Arguments
4 (a) The Company is experiencing competition from the UK and
the continent. This is the result of cheaper energy
costs abroad, favourable exchange rates, higher
productivity and economies of scale. A combination of
the exchange rate and slump in polymer prices enabled
foreign competitors to cut prices in 1986 to about 20%
below the Company's prices. Furthermore, the peat and
fertilizers markets which are served by the Company are
under particular pressure from the recession and weather.
(b) The Company considers that its current average rate of
pay for 40 hours of #200.07 compares well with the
average wage for the plastics industry of #192 (CSO
figure). The Company is willing to negotiate an increase
in rates of pay for 1987. Overtime and employer
liability claims for 1986 came to over #60,000.
(c) In recent years investment in the Company has far
exceeded profits. The Company has already been
subsidised in this difficult period.
(d) There was a considerable cost to the Company in payments
to those made redundant. It was made clear at the time
that there would be no payments to those whose jobs had
been saved by the investment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and noting the trading position of the Company, does not
find it possible to recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
24th March, 1987 ___________________
AK/PG Deputy Chairman