Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88389 Case Number: LCR11947 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HARP (IRELAND) LTD - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS;ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION (I) LTD;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
1. Payment of compensation. 2. Harmonisation of conditions.
Recommendation:
9. The Court recommends that on acceptance by both parties of
this recommendation the lump sum of £2,050 be paid in full.
The Court also recommends that the company's offer on
harmonisation of conditions be accepted subject to the provision
that the question of further steps towards full parity of hours of
work may be negotiated after 1990 in the light of circumstances
then prevailing.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88389 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11947
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: HARP (IRELAND) LTD
(Represented by the Federated Union of Ireland)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS
ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION (I) LTD
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Payment of compensation.
2. Harmonisation of conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns 32 general operatives and craft workers
employed by Harp (Ireland) Ltd. There was an agreement between
unions and management on a 3 year plan (1984 to 1987) to deal with
difficulties caused by declining sales. Part of the plan included
a commitment to pay compensation for loss of earnings. The unions
are trying to achieve harmonisation of conditions within the
company between clerical staff and the joint union group members
(JUG). The main practical implication of this sought after
harmonisation is that the JUG are seeking a reduction of five
hours in the working week. They are seeking the reduction in the
context of ongoing productivity changes.
The company is now proposing a 5 year investment plan. In
December, 1987 the company circulated a document (draft agreement)
to the union group outlining its proposals and setting out the
up-to-date position regarding compensation for loss of earnings
and harmonisation of conditions (the 27th round was also referred
to in this document but it was subsequently settled locally,
details supplied to the Court). The Company states that it had
agreed with JUG to pay each of its members £2,050 in full and
final settlement of all claims for compensation for loss of
earnings arising out of changes introduced to date and for
facilitating the development of the proposed agreement (provision
was also made for future schemes for loss of earnings if
necessary). The document states that no further payment or
premium was attached to, or attracted by, co-operation with the
proposed programme. The company made a commitment to make
specific proposals for a reduction in working hours by 30
September, 1988.
During subsequent discussions it emerged that the unions were not
happy with the conditions the company attached to the payment of
the £2050; in particular they were in fundamental disagreement
with the company's insistence that the £2050 was to be a full and
final settlement regarding the productivity elements of the new
agreement. The unions also rejected a company proposal to move
towards harmonisation of conditions by reducing the working week
by one hour, claiming that they would have got this under the
Programme for National Recovery anyway. The company claim the
JUG are going back on an agreement to accept the payment of the
money as a final settlement of past and future productivity claims
and to co-operate with the new development plan.
Agreement could not be reached at local level and on 10th March,
1988 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 19th April,
1988.
Agreement was not reached at the conciliation conference and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on 25th May, 1988. The respective positions of the
parties on coming to the Court were as follows:-
The unions claimed that the compensation for loss earnings arising
from the plan April 1984 - April 1987 be paid in full and that a
reduction of 5 hours in the working week be granted over the
lifetime of the agreement in the context of the productivity
changes.
The company requested the Court to recommend:-
1. That the company was not obliged to negotiate on a
productivity basis;
2. that the JUG accept the lump sum of £2,050 as adequate
compensation for facilitating the development of the
investment plan;
3. that the JUG accept the proposed timetable for
discussions on the mechanisms for a reduction of one hour
per week or working time equivalent.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 20th June, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The JUG claim that the agreed compensation of £2,050 for
loss of earnings arising from the period April, 1984 to April,
1987 should be paid without delay.
2. The unions are prepared to examine the question of
reduced working hours in the context of the company's proposed
investment plan, its consequences for productivity and reduced
manning, etc.. The JUG asked the advisory service of Irish
Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) to quantify the costs of
conceding the claim for a reduced working week, having regard
to reduced manning and extra output. The report prepared by
ICTU shows the high level of return and savings to the company
based on its current investment programme. (Details supplied
to the Court). Much of these savings and returns will accrue
to the company on the basis of increased productivity. In the
context of this increased productivity, the JUG are seeking a
reduction of five hours in the week over the lifetime of the
proposed new agreement, which would enable the workers to
fully co-operate with the company's investment plan.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Following the 1984 strike which was settled on the basis
of a Labour Court recommendation, the company sought and were
granted an undertaking from the JUG that they would not be
seeking productivity based settlements in return for
co-operation (details supplied to the Court).
2. The company would like to draw the Court's attention to
recommendation 10924 issued in 1987 following a JUG claim for
shorter working hours, which recommended that shorter hours
should not be conceded at the time but went on to say that
they could be discussed in 1987 on the expiry of the 1984
agreement.
It should be noted that it was the JUG and not the company who
made reference to "the forthcoming productivity talks" at that
time.
The Company could not accept that this phrase either:-
(a) invalidates the Court's recommendation AL 8854
issued in 1984 on the question of the limited
application for productivity, or
(b) that it in any way prejudices the acknowledgement
in the 1984 recommendation that the company is not
in any way committed to negotiate on any particular
basis the JUG may put forward on the expiry of the
agreement.
3. As part of the current round of negotiations, consistent with
the Court's 1986 recommendation but well in advance of the
publication of the terms as set out in the Programme for
National Recovery, the company was prepared to make proposals
in the coming autumn on the mechanisms for the implementation
of a reduction in working hours. This proposal is consisted
with the Programme for National Recovery.
4. The company's industrial relations policy is based on the 1984
recommendation and was developed and communicated to all
during the years following the 1984 strike. In 1984 a IR£10m
investment programme was jettisoned as a result of the strike.
While some IR£5m was spent on the new brewhouse some two years
later, this represented a minimum amount that could be spent
to maintain the brewery. Four years on, there is again a
dispute relating to productivity which has resulted in
withdrawal of approval for the IR£15m investment programme
supporting the investment plan (5 year). Satisfactory
industrial relations in the company cannot be based on the
negotiation of pay and conditions in return for the operation
of any plant and equipment necessary to supply the market. In
modern brewing facilities, change is a normal everyday event
and, unless a climate can be created where investment and
change can take place with the clear knowledge that the plant
will be operated, the company will have ongoing difficulty
securing approval for investment.
5. The company will not negotiate along the productivity
route again. This avenue has been previously explored with
disastrous consequences. Future security of employment is at
risk unless this company provides the means to compete for and
hold onto new brands and export orders and maintains
continuity of supply.
6. The employees' interests are adequately covered by the
safeguards and the lump sum payments negotiated by the JUG and
the terms as set out in the draft agreement in relation to:-
- Compensation guarantees,
- the sourcing guarantees, and
- the 27th wage round, which includes
generous supplementary elements.
Further, during the talks, the Company assured the JUG
(a) that it will not seek in these proposals
to alter the concept of co-operation with
the operation of new plant, equipment and
methods;
(b) that it will not seek to alter the basis
for the traditional flexibility as
applied in the company for the
introduction and operation of new plant,
equipment and methods as experienced
between the parties over the years.
7. Full flexibility exists for general operatives between
the various departments and tasks throughout the brewery.
These arrangements have served the employees very well in the
past and have led to high earning levels. The Court will note
the pay rates in this company are substantially higher than
average (details supplied to the Court). It is this pay
policy, negotiated over the years with the JUG, which supports
the flexibility of operators and the operation of modern
methods and control systems throughout the brewery.
8. While the rates for process operators are pitched for
the higher skilled and more technically oriented tasks, they
apply to all operatives trained for them, even though the
individual operators may be assigned to tasks of lesser skill
or knowledge. Rewards for the operation of plant and
equipment are, therefore, already reflected in these rates and
grades. Co-operation with the operation of necessary plant
and equipment in the context of any investment which the
company may secure over the next three to five years will
necessitate no difficult change for the workforce. In the
context of the pay structures which support flexibility
throughout the brewery, and on the basis of the arguments as
set out, the company asks the Court to:-
(a) re-affirm, in line with its earlier recommendation
in 1984, that this company is not in any way
obliged to negotiate on a productivity basis;
(b) recommend that the JUG honour their undertakings
given at the outset not to seek productivity based
settlements which formed the cornerstone for
concession of the terms set out in the draft
agreement;
(c) recommend that the JUG now accept the conditions
(the wording of which was previously agreed)
attached to the benefits package, as set out in the
draft agreement;
(d) recommend that the JUG accept the lump sum of
£2,050 as adequate compensation for facilitating
the development of the draft agreement.
As a separate issue, the company would ask the Court to
recommend that the JUG accept the proposed timetable for
discussions on the mechanisms (not conditions) for a reduction
of one hour per week, or working time equivalent.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court recommends that on acceptance by both parties of
this recommendation the lump sum of £2,050 be paid in full.
The Court also recommends that the company's offer on
harmonisation of conditions be accepted subject to the provision
that the question of further steps towards full parity of hours of
work may be negotiated after 1990 in the light of circumstances
then prevailing.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_____________________
12th July, 1988. Chairman
P.F./U.S.