Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88857 Case Number: LCR12182 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS PLC. - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of 75 workers at the Company's Fox & Geese plant for a share of the savings and increased profits of the Company.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties
and noting the agreements in existence and the payments already
provided for, is not satisfied that the claim for additional
compensation is soundly based.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88857 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12182
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH DISTILLERS PLC.
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of 75 workers at the Company's
Fox & Geese plant for a share of the savings and increased profits
of the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1987, the Company implemented a survival plan at
it's Fox & Geese plant which included more capital investment,
about 60 voluntary redundancies, changed work practices and
compensation for loss of overtime. It was agreed to review the
situation after 12 months. At local meetings in September, 1988,
the Unions claimed that under the plan the Company had made
estimated savings of #4m., and the workers should receive some
reward. The Unions believed a once-off payment of #5,000 per
worker would be realistic. The claim was rejected by the Company
on the basis that any savings achieved have an impact on profits
of which the workforce receive a share and that since the
announcement of the plan the workers had been rewarded with
increases totalling 17.33%. On 5th October, 1988, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement was reached at conciliation conferences held on 17th and
24th October, 1988, and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court on 24th November, 1988, for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 12th December,
1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company, in Dublin, has achieved all it set out to
achieve in the plan, including redundancies which reduced it's
labour costs by #14,000 per worker i.e. #924,000 per annum.
2. Demanning has resulted in major changes in work practices
and flexibility. The transport staff have increased
productivity, give a better service to customers and
eliminated overtime by adopting a 'standard hours payment
plan'. Production staff, with a reduction in their numbers,
have increased production dramatically. Other areas in the
Company have had a reduction in numbers thereby also
increasing productivity.
3. During the recent take-over battle the Company constantly
stressed that it was the changes achieved in 1987, such as
reductions in absenteeism and overtime, that made the Company
so attractive to outside interests.
4. The payments that the Company claims were made since the
introduction of the plan in 1987 and amounted to #38.29 per
week are misleading because most of them would have occurred
even if there was no agreement on the plan, e.g. the plus pay
increase was due for review for a number of years, the
increased profit share resulted from 200 redundancies leaving
a bigger share for the remaining workers and the fact that
last year's profits were reduced because of a once-off
redundancy payment. The only increase directly connected with
the plan was a #6 per week payment given to a section of the
workforce for lunchtime flexibility.
5. The Unions believe a once-off payment of #5,000 per worker
as a share of the savings/profits of #4m., of which #3m. will
flow into profits each year, is fair and reasonable as these
savings have been achieved as a result of changes in work
practices and extra productivity agreed by the workforce.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The survival plan agreed after months of negotiations was
an attempt to put the Company on a sound footing after years
of being non-viable and uncompetitive (details supplied to the
Court). With the plan there was immediate investment in the
plant and a costly redundancy package. The future of the
plant depends upon competitive manning levels and flexible
working arrangements. Our rate of efficiency is still
unsatisfactory but the planned investment programme is
improving this.
4. 2. Employees have benefitted substantially with increases of
17.33% Plus pay, which is paid for ongoing change and
co-operation was increased from #31.37 to #40.00 per week in
instalments. The first instalment to apply from 1st
September, 1988 followed by two instalments at yearly
intervals making the new figure #40 per week with effect from
1st September, 1990. A condition of these increases was that
there would be full co-operation from employees in improving
the competitive position of the Company. These increases were
given as a direct response to the Unions' plea to recognise
the employee's contribution to the smooth implementation of
the changes following the implementation of the plan.
3. Profit share per employee has increased from #765 in 1987
to #1,469 in 1988 - the employees contribution was thus
reflected in this improved profit share. With continued
co-operation, development and investment this trend will
continue. This removes the necessity for any claims by the
Unions.
4. The Company have a lot to do yet to complete the
restructuring of the plant. Claims for additional lump sum
payments or such like will undermine the efforts being made to
create a plant which will be as competitive as those which are
operating elsewhere. The Company has also to take into
account the nature of such a claim, the possible spin offs and
the damage to the recovery prospects of an industry which has
been in the public eye for the past six months. All efforts,
agreements made and costs incurred in the plan would count for
nothing if the Company does not keep to the plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties
and noting the agreements in existence and the payments already
provided for, is not satisfied that the claim for additional
compensation is soundly based.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___20th___December,__1988. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman