Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89132 Case Number: LCR12334 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HENRY DENNY & SONS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the application of the Programme for National Recovery and the restoration of a shop facility.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that both sides should accept the proposals put
forward by the Industrial Relations Officer amended to provide for
a payment of #125 by the Company instead of #85.
The Court also recommends that the Union accepts the voucher
system at present in operation in relation to the purchase by
employees of Company products as a reasonable alternative to the
previous system.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89132 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12334
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: HENRY DENNY & SONS (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the application of the Programme for
National Recovery and the restoration of a shop facility.
BACKGROUND:
2. The terms of the last wage agreement (L.C.R. 10927 refers)
expired on the 31st January, 1988, for craftsmen and on the 28th
February, 1988 for all other grades. The existing rates are:
Basic Bonus
Grade A #143.09 #57.23
Grade B #137.11 #54.84
Grade C #133.17 #53.27
The Union sought the application of the pay terms of the P.N.R.
but the Company was unwilling to pay unless certain concessions
were obtained in return. The Company was specifically interested
in reducing the number of daily breaks enjoyed by the claimants as
it claimed this resulted in low productivity. The Union argued
that the P.N.R. should be paid without any strings attached. As
no local level agreement was possible the issue was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Two conciliation
conferences were held on the 27th September and the 4th October,
1988. Following the second conciliation conference the I.R.O. put
forward the following settlement proposals:
- The terms of the P.N.R. will apply for 3 years from the
due dates.
- There will be one 20 minute break in the morning
Employees will be at their place of work ready to
recommence work 20 minutes after their break commences,
and a 10 minute break in the afternoon.
- The 9 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. breaks will cease. A sum of
#85 will be paid into the sports and social club in
respect of each employee affected by this change. The
Club will make the same payment to the employees. This
is a once-off payment.
- There will be a shutdown on the first Monday of Festival
Week. There will also be a shutdown on the previous
Saturday. The Saturdays preceding and following this
will be worked on overtime where necessary. There will
also be another half-day outside festival week onto
holidays. Bonus will be paid on this 1.50 days as per all
other annual holidays.
- This proposal is made on the understanding that it is
recommended for acceptance by both parties. If rejected
by either side,it is withdrawn.
Despite being recommended for acceptance by the negotiating
Committee, the workers rejected the settlement terms at a general
meeting.
3. In May, 1988, the Union also referred to conciliation a
dispute concerning the discontinuation of a shop facility within
the factory. For many years staff had the facility to purchase
the Company's products in the factory with the necessary deduction
being made from their salaries. The Company decided to change
this system and introduced a scheme whereby the workers were given
vouchers which they used to get the Company's produce at cost
price in certain local shops. The Union is objecting to this
change and want the former system restored. In January, 1989, the
Union referred both issues to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Company agreed to the referral on the
21st February, and a Court hearing was held on the 1st March,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was taken over by the Kerry Group PLC in
1982. Since then there has been a continuous effort to claw
back hard-earned conditions of employment (details supplied to
the Court). The Company's latest attempt is the erosion of
breaks and to tie this in as a condition for payment of the
P.N.R. The workers are totally opposed to this. They
accepted the terms of the P.N.R. in late 1987 when the
Programme was being balloted on nationwide and at that time
there were no indications from Management that there would be
any difficulty with the application of the terms. This is the
second time since the takeover that Management has refused to
honour agreements reached at national level. The first was
its refusal to accept terms agreed in October, 1984 to end an
industrial dispute that was in progress at the time.
4. 2. Since the Company was taken over, the throughput has been
increased from 1200 pigs a week to 1400 pigs a day without a
corresponding increase in either the workforce or in pay.
3. The arbitrary abolition of the shop facility by the
Company is a most regrettable move. The Union contends that
the Company acted in contravention of its takeover obligation
where it was agreed that all existing conditions of employment
would remain and that any changes would only be by negotiation
and agreement. The claimants are totally dissatisfied with
the new arrangement and feel that they are being belittled by
not being able to secure the product they are producing
themselves within their own workplace. The Court is requested
to recommend the restoration of the former practice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Kerry Group acquired Henry Denny & Sons (Ireland) Limited
in 1982. Dennys was at that time in very serious financial
difficulty and, had effectively become commercially non viable
many years beforehand. The business was very seriously
depleted and the work practices, conditions of employment and
wages structure inherited by Kerry Group were no longer
appropriate to the critical situation pertaining in the bacon
industry at that time. No major changes have been made in
these areas. The Court will also be aware that the chronic
problems relating to this industry have continued, and
survival has been the priority in a climate where more and
more established companies have gone to the wall. The effort
required over the past six years to keep the Company trading
has been enormous. Both major investment and Management time
and energy have been channelled into the Company at the
expense of the other sectors of the business. The lack of
return on this time and investment has been questioned for
very valid reasons and Management is obviously aware of the
necessity to act prudently in these circumstances when extra
funds are requested whether in the area of labour or
otherwise.
2. Despite these difficulties workers in Dennys enjoy the
highest pay rates in Kerry Group Plc, have much longer break
periods than anyone else in the Group or in the industry and
have more holidays than any other workers in the Group
(details supplied to the Court). The rate of absenteeism in
Dennys is more than four times higher than the Group average
and, despite constant effort on Management's part, has
recently worsened.
3. A reduction in the number of breaks would actually have a
beneficial monetary effect averaging #3 per week for each
employee as a result of the increased productivity carrying
through to bonus payments. This effectively means that
employees will get the P.N.R. on basic and on bonus earned
plus an additional amount over and above these increases.
5. 4. The package put forward at conciliation, which is fair and
reasonable for employees, represents the only formula whereby
the Company can pay the P.N.R. It is essential that the
costly inefficiencies in the work system are removed. This
package represents a step in the right direction and involves
compensation over and above the terms of the P.N.R.
5. The Company is opposed to any restoration of the shop
facility. It contends that it had administrative/control
problems with the old system and that the Union Committee were
agreeable to the change. The new system is more favourable in
that the claimants can now get the produce on any day of the
week whereas before they were restricted to a certain day of
the week.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that both sides should accept the proposals put
forward by the Industrial Relations Officer amended to provide for
a payment of #125 by the Company instead of #85.
The Court also recommends that the Union accepts the voucher
system at present in operation in relation to the purchase by
employees of Company products as a reasonable alternative to the
previous system.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_____________________
3rd April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.