Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89359 Case Number: LCR12466 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the renewal of a comprehensive agreement.
Recommendation:
11. The Court is of the opinion that it is essential for its
commercial dealings that the binding undertaking required by them
should be conceded to the Company for the duration of the
Agreement currently under consideration. The Court notes that the
Company when negotiating the next Agreement to be in place in
February, 1991 would be prepared to accept at that time the form
of agreement proposed by the Unions as outlined by the Unions in
their submission to the Court which offers a wide range of
safeguards against industrial disruption. Having regard to the
comparatively short time involved and the apparent agreement as to
future approaches to this important matter, the Court recommends
that the Unions accept the Company's form of procedure for the
duration of the agreement up to 1991.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89359 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12466
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PACKARD ELECTRIC LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the renewal of a comprehensive agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufacturers wiring harnesses for the automotive
industry. All of its production is exported primarily to the
United Kingdom and Germany. A total of 1210 people are employed
at its plant in Tallaght.
3. The Company is part of the component division of General
Motors Corporation. In Europe this division is controlled by
Reinshagen GMBH from its headquarters in Wuppertal in West
Germany. There are thirteen other harness manufacturing plants in
the group in Europe.
4. In February, 1987 following a prolonged strike the workers
accepted settlement terms which included the adoption of a
comprehensive Labour Agreement which included a no strike
industrial peace clause or a guarantee of supply clause. In
return the Company gave a guarantee that there would be no forced
redundancy for the life of the Agreement and built in additional
stages to the grievance and disciplinary procedures. The
Agreement expired on 28th February, 1989.
5. For a number of months prior to the expiry date of the
Agreement a number of meetings took place between the Unions and
the Company regarding the introduction of another comprehensive
agreement.
6. In January, 1989 the Company put forward its proposals for the
new Agreement which provided for a four year agreement and the
inclusion of a no strike (guarantee of supply) clause. The Unions
held a series of meetings on the Plant and recommended rejection
of the Company's proposals and asked the workers to endorse an
alternative position drawn up by the Unions. Following a ballot
the workers rejected the Company proposals and endorsed the
Unions' position.
7. Further discussions ensued at local level. The Company
offered a number of concessions to the Unions (details supplied to
the Court) subject to the inclusion of the following clause in the
Industrial Peace Section:
"In the context of implementation of the Agreement the right
of the Unions to take industrial action is reaffirmed, but
the Unions and the employees agree that for the period of
this Agreement they will not implement any form of industrial
action. All disputes will be dealt with and finalised
through procedures.
Equally, the right of the Company to implement Compulsory
Redundancies due to business reasons is reaffirmed but the
Company agree that for the period of this Agreement it will
not implement forced Redundancies.
Where an issue or dispute has been to the Labour Court,
Employment Appeals Tribunal, or other 3rd party as provided
for in this Agreement, the decision or recommendation of the
3rd party will be accepted by all parties to this Agreement."
The Unions objected to this clause and proposed the following in
its place:-
"Both parties commit themselves to a level of Industrial Peace
which will guarantee our customers reliability of supply for
contracts they may place with the Company. Both parties
agree on the need for industrial peace and the absolute
necessity to process any dispute or grievance through agreed
procedures as set out in the dispute. Grievance Procedure
(Clause 14 hereof). Both parties recognise that the
responsibility for ensuring industrial peace is a shared
responsibility between Management, employees and their Union
Representatives.
In the event of dismissals taking place, and if the
dismissal/s is found to be unfair by the Employment Appeals
Tribunal, the Company accepts that the redress will be
re-engagement or reinstatement unless the employee requests
compensation from the Tribunal.
Unofficial action, e.g. blacking, go-slows-walk-outs,
unofficial stoppages of any kind, or lock-outs, will be
contrary to the terms of this Agreement and both sides accept
that the future existence and development of the Plant hinges
upon strict adherence to this Agreement.
The Union Officials, elected Union Representatives, Union
members and Management, will accept their responsibility
towards reaching solutions to Grievance Disputes without
recourse to industrial action or lock-outs.
Unofficial action will not be supported in any way by any
member of either Union.
Accordingly, industrial action (subject to restrictions on
cost-increasing claims as per clause 1.1 would only be
entered into after full use of the procedures, and following
a majority secret ballot vote held in the Plant, and then
only after the serving of fourteen days notice in writing."
8. The matter was then referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 13th April, 1989. Conciliation conferences
were held on 26th April, 3rd May and 4th May, 1989. As no
agreement was possible the parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing
was held on the 14th June, 1989. Following is a summary of
position of the parties.
Unions Company
Duration of Agreement: 2 years 2 years
Pay P.N.R. for 2 years P.N.R. for 2 years
1st phase 1/3/89 1st phase 1/3/89
2nd phase 1/3/90 2nd phase 1/3/90
Technological/Operational change
Guarantees on Job/Earnings concession of these
points to be
clarified.
Payment by Cheque
(a) Time off or (a) No time off
(b) Improved compensation (b) Compensation
offered
(c) Facilities for cash
for same.
Temporary Employees
Amendments sought Agreement
Working up the Line
Change sought Agreement
Extended Shifts (a) Enhanced Premium (a) 25% offered
(b) Equalisation of (b) Rejected.
overtime.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Unions' contend that the industrial peace clause
endorsed by the workers is sufficient in itself to ensure
reliability of supply for the duration of the Agreement. As
most disputes arise on issues of pay and as the Unions are
operating within the terms of the P.N.R. for the duration of
the Agreement a dispute over pay will not arise.
2. The Company have argued for the need to satisfy customer
requirements. However it is the Unions' contention that the
only circumstances for an industrial dispute would be if
Management acted foolishly or provocatively (i.e. blatant
discrimination, victimisation etc) to such an extent that a
dispute would be the only recourse. However such an outcome
is highly unlikely given the stringent conditions which the
Unions have laid down and the decision making process
enshrined in the Agreement with the obvious cooling off
process which would occur while the conciliation machinery was
being utilised.
3. The Unions have made every effort to allay the Company's
fears. They have proposed that individual claims could be
dealt with by an agreed arbitrator and agreed to consider
favourably a suggestion by the Industrial Relations Officer
that the Unions would agree not to take industrial action in
pursuance of any claims initiated by them from date of
acceptance up to 20th February, 1991. In addition it was also
suggested that potential areas of conflict be identified and
machinery put in place for dealing with them. The Company
responded in a positive way to the Unions suggestions but
insisted that any concessions in this direction still depends
on acceptance of their no strike clause.
4. When the previous history of the Plant, the poor level of
industrial relations, the resistance to change, the shop floor
conflicts and the lack of certainty is considered, and
contrasted with the positive progressive flexible position
adopted by the workers, the Unions believe any observer could
but agree that the Union membership in Packard are making a
major contribution to the Company's future progress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Management and the employees have spent the two years
since 1987 rebuilding the business which was damaged almost
beyond repair by the strike. The opportunity to rebuild the
business would not have been even possible without the
absolute agreement to guarantee supplies by agreeing to
binding arbitration. In the fiercely competitive market in
which the Company operates, both within its own Group and with
outsiders (details supplied to the Court), success will only
be achieved by guaranteeing supplies of quality product at the
price the customer is willing to pay. The reputation of
Packard Electric Ireland up to January, 1987 as a reliable
supplier was completely undermined. This reputation had been
gained by a history of unofficial action over a number of
years. The agreement reached in 1987 sought to redress this
position. It gave absolute guarantee of supply by having
binding arbitration. It sought to increase its cost
effectiveness by improving efficiency and adapting to change.
It undertook to improve its quality by commitments to training
at every level.
2. The agreement brought enough work to the plant to avoid
forced redundancy in line with its commitment, in return for
binding arbitration. Despite the normal fluctuations in the
harness business, enough business was got to avoid lay offs or
short time since the full resumption of work. This had never
happened in the past.
3. With the on-going technological/operational change
necessary to remain competitive and the introduction of an
incentive scheme in the plant we will need extra business to
maintain present employment levels and keep our guarantee of
no forced redundancy. This can only be done if the absolute
guarantee of supply continues. The plant has not yet reached
the required level of customer confidence without such a
guarantee being in place.
4. The guarantees and other concessions given by the Company
are exceptional in the competitive environment in which it
operates and they are only justified in the context of a no
strike agreement. This is consistent with the Company's
position since talks began in November. The security of the
jobs of 1,200 people in the Tallaght Community is at stake
here. The Company has gone a very long way since discussions
opened in November, to provide safeguards and concessions
which would make it possible to secure the commitment to the
guarantee of supply. It has done this because the issue is so
important for the job security of its employees and the
welfare of their dependents.
5. The Company is prepared to put into a formal written
proposal those ideas outlined by the Unions on 6th April, 1989
on the basis of the assurances sought and the inclusion of
binding arbitration in any final agreement. The Company
believes that this is in the best long term interest of the
employees and the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court is of the opinion that it is essential for its
commercial dealings that the binding undertaking required by them
should be conceded to the Company for the duration of the
Agreement currently under consideration. The Court notes that the
Company when negotiating the next Agreement to be in place in
February, 1991 would be prepared to accept at that time the form
of agreement proposed by the Unions as outlined by the Unions in
their submission to the Court which offers a wide range of
safeguards against industrial disruption. Having regard to the
comparatively short time involved and the apparent agreement as to
future approaches to this important matter, the Court recommends
that the Unions accept the Company's form of procedure for the
duration of the agreement up to 1991.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
__12th__July, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.