Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87132 Case Number: LCR11165 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SPOLLEN CONCRETE, LIMERICK - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the production of pipes of 36" diameter or over in Limerick.
Recommendation:
7. The Court is of the view that some at least of the
difficulties of this case have arisen because of insufficient
communication between the parties, and suggests that high level
discussions take place between management and union covering the
current and future prospects for the Mungret Plant in the context
of the whole Company. The Court is not satisfied that the plant
has been unfairly treated as regards investment and recommends
therefore that the employees reconsider the proposal arrived at at
Conciliation bearing in mind the extremely low demand for the
larger size (42" and 48") of pipe and the Companys commitment to
having the 'Major' machine repaired and producing a minimum of 180
metres of the 36" size by July 1987.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87132 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11165
CC8798 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11165
Parties: SPOLLEN CONCRETE, LIMERICK
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the production of pipes of 36" diameter or
over in Limerick.
Background:
2. The dispute concerns thirteen production workers employed by
the Company at Castlemungret, Limerick. The Company produced
pipes of 36"diameter and upwards in Limerick up to the end of
December 1985. The 'Major' machine which produced these pipes
went out of production then because of mechanical failure. In
June 1986 the parties reached agreement which permitted the
Company to transfer the pipe sizes concerned from Naas to Limerick
pending the repair of the 'Major' Machine. The agreement, which
also concerned lay offs, was for a period of twelve months. There
were difficulties experienced in repairing the machine, which has
not been repaired yet.
3. The Company's view was that production on the 'Major' machine
should cease completely and in future all pipes of 36"diameter and
upwards required in Limerick would be transferred from Naas.
This was not acceptable to the workers who claimed compensation of
#2000 per worker in respect of the Company's proposed action.
4. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on
20th January, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 27th January. Arising from the conciliation conference the
representatives from both sides agreed to recommend settlement
proposals (see appendix 1). However the workers rejected the
proposals and on 23rd February, 1987 the case was referred to the
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 18th March, 1987 in Limerick.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The loss involved for the workers is a total of nine
weeks pay and this would be excessive considering all
they have lost to date.
(ii) The workers have given loyal service to the Company, in
some cases more than twenty years service. They now
consider the Company is attempting to casualise the
Limerick plant. The workers are attempting to secure
their employment in Limerick.
(iii) This Company is not in financial trouble.
(iv) The loss of this machine would have serious
consequences for employment in Limerick.
(v) The Union cannot accept that it should be difficult to
replace or repair the present pump of the machine.
(vi) The workers distrust the Company's actions and believe
that their co-operation and goodwill are not being
responded to positively by the Company.
(vii) The Company abused the lay-off period by getting
hauliers to draw pipes from Naas to stockpile in the
Limerick plant at a time when the workers were on a
weeks lay-off.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) Less than 2% of overall production at Limerick is
related to the 'Major'. Therefore it has no
significant impact on working time or earnings of
workers in Limerick.
(b) The Company must be able to carry a full range of
products at Limerick if its trading position is not to
be undermined further.
(c) In terms of capacity to produce 36"diameter pipes and
greater , the Company does not require production from
the 'Major' in Limerick, it has over supply capacity
from its Naas plant.
(d) The quality of pipe produced from the Limerick 'Major'
is not up to standard of the Naas production and does
not meet the specification of Public Works Contracts.
(e) The arrangement recommended at the Conciliation
Conference, whereby 36" pipes should be produced in
Limerick and larger pipes stocked from Naas production
already applies within the Spollen Group; at the Sligo
depot.
(f) There will be no job losses resulting from the
proposals made at conciliation.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court is of the view that some at least of the
difficulties of this case have arisen because of insufficient
communication between the parties, and suggests that high level
discussions take place between management and union covering the
current and future prospects for the Mungret Plant in the context
of the whole Company. The Court is not satisfied that the plant
has been unfairly treated as regards investment and recommends
therefore that the employees reconsider the proposal arrived at at
Conciliation bearing in mind the extremely low demand for the
larger size (42" and 48") of pipe and the Companys commitment to
having the 'Major' machine repaired and producing a minimum of 180
metres of the 36" size by July 1987.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan.
----------------
7th May, 1987.
T O'M/U.S. Chairman