Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88827 Case Number: LCR12196 Section / Act: S67 Parties: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL;TRADE UNION, ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION,;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION,;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALLIED TRADES TECHNICIANS |
Dispute concerning alleged breach of 1984 agreement.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the terms of the agreement made at the time,
in particular the clause relating to natural wastage, the Court is
satisfied that the agreement cannot in the circumstances be
construed in the manner suggested by the Unions. The Court does
not, therefore, recommend concession of the Unions' claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88827 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12196
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL
TRADE UNION, ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION,
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION,
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALLIED TRADES TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged breach of 1984 agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to financial difficulties in the Company in 1984,
discussions took place between the Company and the craft unions
resulting in an agreement (dated 28th November, 1984) to increase
productivity etc and to ensure the viability of the Company. The
Company was seeking a number of redundancies including two fitters
in the maintenance department and as part of the agreement the
unions agreed to forego a 4% wage increase due under the second
phase of the 24th wage round in return for the withdrawal of the
two proposed redundancies. The number of craft workers was agreed
as fifteen fitters, five electricians and two carpenters. In
August, 1986 one of the fitters retired on pension at sixty five
years of age and was not replaced. The Union has claimed that
this is a breach of the 1984 agreement and the Company should
either restore the number of fitters to fifteen or pay the 4%
increase now. This was rejected by the Company on the basis that
both the 1984 agreement and a further agreement reached in 1987
contain clauses on natural wastage. On 16th September, 1988 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 13th October, 1988
at which agreement could not be reached and on 27th October, 1988
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 30th
November, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1984 when the Company found itself in difficult
financial circumstances, the Company set out new productivity
targets based on independent studies which would bring output
in line with their competitors. The unions were of the
opinion that the increased output levels could not be achieved
with fewer workers than were then employed and that bonus
earnings would not improve. Therefore, it was agreed that the
workers would forego the 4% wage increase due under the second
phase of the 24th wage round in order to maintain employment
levels and achieve productivity output (details supplied to
the Court). It was agreed that fifteen fitters, five
electricians and two carpenters would be employed.
2. Productivity has significantly surpassed the targets set
in November, 1984, the number of production workers employed
has increased and the companies financial position has been
transformed. The craft workers are the only ones not to have
received the benefits of the improved position. Basic pay is
approximately #178.00, the bonus paid is static at #34.00
despite significantly increased productivity and the total
number of fitters is now only fourteen which is one less than
agreed. The Company is now in breach of the 1984 agreement
and in order to maintain equity should either pay the 4%
increase in wages or restore the number of fitters to fifteen.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1984 agreement was a rescue package and involved
redundancies of members of all unions. Two redundancies in
the craft section were withdrawn at the request of the unions
who agreed to forego a 4% increase as per clause 8 of the
agreement (details supplied to the Court). Other groups of
workers also took the same course of action, although it was
necessary to implement thirty nine redundancies in one group.
Since 1984 all other groups have shed jobs through natural
wastage. The Company's policy in relation to natural wastage
has applied in all areas and since 1984 the number of jobs
lost through this has been: 16.6% of managerial, supervisory
and administrative staff; 10% of general operatives; and 4.5%
of crafts.
2. Both the 1984 agreement and a further one made in
October 1987 (details supplied to the Court) after the
retirement of the worker, state that "the company will
continue its policy of natural wastage". The claim is not
therefore applicable under these and is further precluded by
clauses in the 1984 and 1987 agreements and in the PNR
relating to no cost increasing claims. The agreements are
clear and parallel with the policy on natural wastage. The
Company has a policy of no enforced redundancies. If the
Unions position was adopted, the beneficial effects of the
Company's policy on natural wastage would be eliminated.
There would also be repercussive effects from other groups
which would jeopardise the Company's ability to stay in
business.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the terms of the agreement made at the time,
in particular the clause relating to natural wastage, the Court is
satisfied that the agreement cannot in the circumstances be
construed in the manner suggested by the Unions. The Court does
not, therefore, recommend concession of the Unions' claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
--------------------
4th January, 1989
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman