Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89434 Case Number: LCR12457 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ARTHUR GUINNESS SON & COMPANY (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS |
Dispute concerning the proposed withdrawal of some elements of the Company's medical benefits package.
Recommendation:
Having regard to the exceptional range and high cost of medical
services provided by the Company, the Court is of the view that a
rationalisation that will contain costs and protect the core
health service that is being provided is in the best interests of
both the staff and the Company. Accordingly the Court accepts as
reasonable the limitations and reductions in the services that are
proposed and which have been already negotiated and accepted by
other groups of workers in the Company.
The Court notes that the Company also negotiated the provisions of
some alternative off-site services with these other workers albeit
in the context of the Continuing Competitiveness Plan (C.C.P.).
As the changes in the services provided heretofore constitute a
reduction of former conditions of employment, the Court would view
it as punitive to exclude the craftsmen covered by this claim,
from the off-site services provided for other staff, simply
because they had not accepted the Continuing Competitiveness Plan
(C.C.P.). Accordingly the Court recommends that the Guinness
Skilled Group of Unions accept the changes in the medical services
as proposed by the Company and that the Company for its part make
the off-site services provided for other staff available to the
craftsmen covered by this claim. This recommendation does not
imply an entitlement to craftsmen of any other benefit that
accrued to workers who accepted the Continuing Competitiveness
Plan (C.C.P.).
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89434 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12457
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ARTHUR GUINNESS SON & COMPANY (DUBLIN) LIMITED
and
GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed withdrawal of some elements of
the Company's medical benefits package.
BACKGROUND:
2. The 1978 Company/Union Agreement provides for a comprehensive
medical benefits package (details supplied to the Court). As part
of the 1987 Continuing Competitiveness Plan (CCP) the Company is
proposing alterations to this package. (The CCP has been accepted
by some of the unions within the Company but not by the Skilled
Group). By letter dated the 13th October, 1988, the Company's
Managing Director wrote to the Group outlining proposed changes in
medical, catering and bicentenary costs. With regard to medical
benefits it was proposed that from the 1st November, 1988,
dentistry and chiropody would cease to be provided for craftsmen
and their dependents. Physiotherapy facilities were only to be
available for the treatment of craftsmen in cases of injuries
sustained at work and medical benefits were no longer to be
available to workers' spouses who were in receipt of an income of
more than #50 per week. (A chiropody service will be available
off-site as will a dentistry service for employees' children aged
between 12-16 for members of unions who accept the CCP). Changes
were also proposed to the Company's voluntary sick pay scheme
(details supplied to the Court). By letter of the 18th October,
the Group replied, strongly protesting at what it termed "an
unprecedented abrogation of the agreements between the Group and
the Company" and requested that the implementation date for the
proposals (1st November) be deferred to allow discussions to take
place. The Company agreed to this. However, local level
discussions failed to resolve the dispute and on the 6th February,
1989, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference on the 4th April (earliest suitable date) and on the
8th June, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
the 16th June, 1989.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The benefits contained in the medical package have been
long-standing conditions of employment for craftsmen and their
dependents. In all past negotiations on wages and conditions
the Company has always stressed the importance and benefit the
Medical Department was to all the craftsmen and Management
never hesitated in making it a very strong point in
negotiations on wage increases.
2. The Company is anxious that the Group accept the
contents of the CCP which contains plans to eliminate all the
crafts in the Company with the exception of fitters and
electricians (by voluntary redundancy or re-deployment).
However, the Group has not accepted the CCP and the Company
has therefore no right to alter the craftsmens' terms. In
essence, the Company wants substitute facilities in exchange
for people giving up jobs.
3. The Company is both viable and profitable (profits in
excess of #56m were reported for 1987) and does not need to
make these changes. The Group requests the Court to find in
its favour and to recommend that the conditions which have
existed in the past and were part of the craftsmens'
conditions of employment be maintained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The changes outlined by the Company are the minimum
necessary to protect the medical package. The proposals
involve the retention of an extensive range of services with a
support staff of 22 at an annual cost of over #1.5m. In fact,
the continued attempts to retain the present medical package
in its entirety will make it more difficult to retain the
medical department.
2. The Company is not prepared to extend the package as
negotiated with the other unions and representative bodies, to
those members of the Skilled Group who have not accepted the
CCP.
3. The Group's claim fails to take account of the
commercial realities facing the brewery. In a situation where
87% of the Company's employees, including fitters (members of
the AEU and NEETU), have accepted the changes required in the
benefit package, the Company cannot exempt other sections of
the Group from the necessary reductions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the exceptional range and high cost of medical
services provided by the Company, the Court is of the view that a
rationalisation that will contain costs and protect the core
health service that is being provided is in the best interests of
both the staff and the Company. Accordingly the Court accepts as
reasonable the limitations and reductions in the services that are
proposed and which have been already negotiated and accepted by
other groups of workers in the Company.
The Court notes that the Company also negotiated the provisions of
some alternative off-site services with these other workers albeit
in the context of the Continuing Competitiveness Plan (C.C.P.).
As the changes in the services provided heretofore constitute a
reduction of former conditions of employment, the Court would view
it as punitive to exclude the craftsmen covered by this claim,
from the off-site services provided for other staff, simply
because they had not accepted the Continuing Competitiveness Plan
(C.C.P.). Accordingly the Court recommends that the Guinness
Skilled Group of Unions accept the changes in the medical services
as proposed by the Company and that the Company for its part make
the off-site services provided for other staff available to the
craftsmen covered by this claim. This recommendation does not
imply an entitlement to craftsmen of any other benefit that
accrued to workers who accepted the Continuing Competitiveness
Plan (C.C.P.).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
7th July, 1989 ---------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman