Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88573 Case Number: LCR12021 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NENAGH TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of eighteen workers for retention of shift premium.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered carefully the submissions of the
parties, considers that the recommendation which emerged from the
conciliation conference on 21st April, 1988 is fair and reasonable
and compares favourably with arrangements for the cessation of
shift in other areas of industry. The Court, therefore,
recommends that the recommendation be accepted now.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88573 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12021
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NENAGH TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of eighteen workers for retention of shift
premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. Nenagh Textile Mills was formed in 1953. It is a private
family company and employs forty operatives in the spinning of
open-end and fancy yarn and weaving of acrylic and dupion curtain
fabrics. The Company has been experiencing difficult trading
conditions since 1982 and operations have been cut back as a
result. The Company discontinued shift working except for short
periods where two shift working was operated in response to market
needs. However, the Company had agreed to continue to pay shift
premium of 16.6% whether shift working was in operation or not.
Early in 1988 the Company notified the workers that it intended to
discontinue the payment of shift premium from the end of February,
1988. The Union objected to this and it was agreed that the
matter would be referred to the Labour Court provided the status
quo remained. At a conciliation conference on 21st April, 1988
settlement terms emerged which provided, inter alia, for the
retention of 50% of the shift premium. However, these proposals
were rejected by the workers. The Company subsequently improved
its offer to provide for the retention of 55% of the shift
premium. This was also rejected. As no further progress could be
made the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court investigation into the dispute was
held in Nenagh on 23rd August, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In recent years, and particularly since the introduction
of higher productivity looms, the need for shift work, or
indeed the 40 hour week, has diminished. However, in
accordance with the agreement with the Company the workers
continued to be paid a premium of 16.6% whether shift work was
in operation or not and in return would be available at short
notice to revert to shift operation as required.
3. 2. On the introduction of the new looms it was agreed that
the workers should not suffer a loss of earnings. No increase
in basic was paid for the resultant increase in productivity.
There is now overstaffing and short time working has been a
feature of the work pattern for several years. There has been
a consequent reduction in earnings. To further depress these
workers' low wages by withdrawing shift premium would be a
blatant breach of the agreement and would further diminish
their already low standard of living.
3. The Union has offered to discuss limited redundancies in
order to enable a movement towards full employment but this
has been rejected. The Company is obviously benefiting from
the system of short time working.
4. The Company's most recent offer would still result in a
net reduction in wages of #11 per 40 hour week. Considering
the co-operation, flexibility, productivity and the existence
of agreement and long-standing custom and practice the Union
is seeking that the status quo remain and the Company's
proposal be rejected.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the very difficult trading conditions, the
Company has had to operate short time working in one form or
another since 1982. The continued low level of activity and
ongoing financial losses have placed a severe burden on the
Company's continued viability.
2. The paying of shift premium when no shift work is being
done cannot be sustained on an ongoing basis. The Company
agreed to continue to pay shift premium when shift working was
discontinued and short time working introduced believing that
this was for a limited period. Unfortunately the trading
situation did not improve sufficiently to allow a full return
to the usual shift pattern.
3. Shift premium is paid for the inconvenience of working
unsocial hours on shift. It cannot be justified when shift is
not being worked. Nevertheless, in the interests of reaching
agreement, the Company was prepared to accept the proposal of
the Conciliation Officer. This proposal was improved by the
Company's offer of 23rd June. However, despite assurances
from the Union that these proposals would be recommended for
acceptance, they were rejected.
4. 4. The Company is in a loss making situation for the last
number of years (details supplied to the Court) and is in an
extremely weak position financially and commercially. Sales
have declined because the Company has lost its competitiveness
in spite of having a very modern spinning and weaving plant.
Attempts to open markets in Europe have met with very little
success to date, again on competitive grounds. Machine
utilisation has dropped sharply between 1981 and 1988 (details
supplied) and the Company has had to sell white yarn to the
U.K. at below the cost of production in order to minimise
losses and keep some of the spinning plant working.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered carefully the submissions of the
parties, considers that the recommendation which emerged from the
conciliation conference on 21st April, 1988 is fair and reasonable
and compares favourably with arrangements for the cessation of
shift in other areas of industry. The Court, therefore,
recommends that the recommendation be accepted now.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
12th September, 1988 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman