Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89367 Case Number: LCR12416 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OERLIKON WELDING (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;NO. 14 BRANCH |
Issues resulting from the dispute which originally concerned the bonus scheme at Unidare Transformers Ltd.
Recommendation:
As a basis for the earliest possible initial return to work, the
Court recommends as follows:-
1. That the Union accept the recommendation in the final
paragraph of the Foreword (Page 4) to this
recommendation.
2. That for a period of two years from the date of this
recommendation the Company will undertake to reserve
for a member of the Unidare Transformer workforce made
redundant by the present closure any job vacancy that
arises provided he has applied for the job and is a
suitable candidate. That selection be by suitability
only and that the Company set up an appropriate system
for the notification of vacancies.
3. That the Union and Company each accept the undertaking
given by the other to the Court that existing
agreements will be fully honoured and that any dispute
which may arise will be processed through procedures
and if necessary to a full Labour Court Hearing.
4. That any work changes sought by the Company or changes
sought by either the Company or the Union in the
Company procedural agreement be negotiated in a
realistic time-frame through the procedures.
5. That the company in the interest of re-establishing
relationships as quickly as possible will apply
"make-up" to those on lay-off.
6. That where loans are requested to meet particular
hardship, the company should view such request
sympathetically.
7. That there be no victimisation by either side of any
person on the work-force and that there be no
"blacking" of people, work or stock.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89367 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12416
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 18
PARTIES: OERLIKON WELDING (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
(NO. 14 BRANCH)
SUBJECT:
1. Issues resulting from the dispute which originally concerned
the bonus scheme at Unidare Transformers Ltd.
BACKGROUND:
FOREWARD:
Unidare Transformers Ltd:
2. The Court initially met the parties to seek a resolution of a
bonus-related dispute which resulted in the recent strike in
Unidare Transformers Ltd. The Court's examination of the dispute
was quickly overtaken and rendered pointless by the decision to
close the transformer production unit at Finglas on commercial
considerations. The Court then commenced consideration of
emergent issues. With regard to the original dispute the Court
would comment that the perilous position of the Transformer
business was well known to all in the company prior to the strike.
The subsequent stances taken by the parties illustrate the
futility of concentration on industrial relations "rights" to the
exclusion of commercial realities on the one hand and of an over -
emphasis on commercial requirements at the expense of the full use
of Industrial Relations process and machinery on the other. While
the business may not have survived in any event, the Court is of
the view that had the company painstakingly used the disputes
procedure in seeking the changes it required, the strike situation
and its far-reaching effects might well have been avoided.
In its announcement of the closure of the transformer unit Unidare
P.L.C. ascribed the reasons for the decision to several years of
substantial losses, present market factors and an uncompetitive
manufacturing cost base. Because of the inability of the Company
to overcome these difficulties the decision to close was
irrevocable. As a consequence of this development the work-force
of Unidare Transformers Ltd were redundant and the Court addressed
itself to the issues of possible alternative employment and
redundancy payments.
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER COMPANIES:
The strike in Unidare Transformers Ltd was supported by Union
members (No. 14 Branch) in the other Companies on the Finglas site
even though these members were not in dispute on any matter with
their individual companies. Each of the individual companies
maintained that these workers were in breach of agreement by
withdrawing their labour in support of a dispute in another
company and as a prerequisite for a return to work sought
assurances through the Union that such an action would not recur
in the future. The Court addressed itself to this and other
issues which emerged in seeking a basis for a return to work in
the various companies. As the companies are individual trading
entities and have distinct market circumstances, the Court met the
Union with each company separately and has prepared a separate
recommendation in respect of each one.
INDUSTRIAL ACTION RELATING TO OTHER COMPANY DISPUTES:
A major common issue between the Union and each of the individual
companies was whether the workers were in breach of agreement by
withdrawing their labour in support of a dispute in another
company. Each company claimed they had no dispute with the Union
and that the action breached its procedural agreement and the SKC
transition document which established by agreement the
independence of the individual Unidare companies. Because of the
serious commercial damage done to each of the companies by the
strike action none was prepared to restart operations without a
commitment that there would be no recurrence of this type of
strike action.
For its part, the Union claimed that its members were not
disbarred by agreement from taking supportive action and that this
view was confirmed by the agreed removal of clause 5.4 from the
original draft of the procedural agreements. The Union also
stated that if it were in breach, such breach was justified by
actions of Unidare Transformers Ltd which was contrary to the SKC
agreement.
The Court has considered the difference of view on this issue as a
matter of great importance as it seems to be one on which the
whole future of the companies and the jobs involved may ultimately
depend.
COURT VIEW:
In reviewing the issue, it is necessary to look at the background
of Unidare at Finglas. Up to 1988 all production and commercial
activity took place within divisions of the one company, Unidare
Ltd, and only one employment existed. A centralised Personnel
Dept dealt with industrial relations matters site wide for the
company and workers acted through the Union and a site committee
as one cohesive body.
In 1988, a business restructuring took place which established six
commercially independent companies and negotiations took place
between the Union and the Company to agree the orderly
dismantlement of the existing industrial relations structure and
its transfer to the individual companies. Agreement was reached,
initially through an agreed enabling document which became known
as the SKC agreement and then through an individual agreement
between each company and the Union on behalf of its members in
that company. (No written individual agreement was concluded for
Unidare Heating and Plastics Ltd., but both parties confirm their
acceptance of the 1982 agreement as modified by the provisions of
the SKC document).
The Court is of the view that the commercial independence of each
company which was the subject of the agreements between the Union
and each Company would have no meaning if it did not include
industrial relations independence. In this sense industrial
relations independence means the isolation of both the company and
the workforce from matters or affairs arising in any other
company. This is an essential ingredient in the stability of any
company and impinges on all facets of the business - financial
investment, production, sales, customer base and job security.
The Court considers that, despite the removal of clause 5.4 for
whatever reason, this concept was firmly incorporated in the SKC
document which provided inter-alia
- for the recognition of a site-committee only for
very limited and defined matters and which
specifically excluded it from negotiations between
the Union and any of the individual companies,
- that under no circumstances would the affairs of
any other Company on the estate be used by either
party as leverage or precedent in attempting to
resolve any problems that might occur in any of the
companies
- that the role of Unidare Site Union Co-ordinator
would be phased out.
Taking into account both the basic concept of individual companies
and the terms of the enabling SKC agreement, the Court considers
that the only reasonable interpretation of the commitment given by
the Union is that workers in one company would not become involved
in issues relating to another company. Having formed this
opinion, the Court recommends that the Union accept it now and
that a clause similar to the 5.4 clause be negotiated into the
individual company procedural agreements to avoid any
misunderstanding in the future.
--------------------------
OERLIKON WELDING POSITION:
The Oerlikon representative voiced strong concern at the
disruption of production and trading from the withdrawal of the
workforce with whom the company had no dispute. He expressed
great anxiety that a similar situation might recur particularly as
80% of the company's production went to very hard-won and volatile
export markets. He was pessimistic of long-term prospects because
production costs left the company at a serious disadvantage
against some competitors (details supplied to the Court). Against
this background he felt that re-opening without an undertaking
that the Company would not be disrupted as a result of another
companies industrial disputes would be sterile.
In the circumstances the company could not accept the payment of
"make-up" for staff who would initially be on lay-off.
UNION POSITION:
The Union maintained that the root cause of the withdrawal of
labour in the individual companies was a breach by Unidare
Transformers Ltd of a fundamental clause of the enabling S.K.C
agreement. As the members in all companies were party to this
agreement the Union believed they were justified in taking
industrial action to maintain the integrity of the agreement when
Unidare Transformers refused to process the dispute through the
full procedures. The Union also argued that it had never
abrogated the right of its members to withdraw their labour from
all of the individual companies in support of a dispute in one of
the companies.
In accord with this position the Union sought the following
conditions as a basis for a return to work.
1. All Agreements to be reintroduced as per pre-strike
situation.
2. The Plc and each of the Companies to give a written
commitment that all Agreements will be honoured and
that all changes affecting earnings and conditions
(including Bonus Schemes and new work practices) shall
be subject to negotiation and agreement as per the
S/K/C Agreement and individual Company Procedural
Agreements.
3. Members in all Companies to retain the option to take
industrial action in support of fellow members in other
Unidare Companies in the event of management breach of
Agreements.
4. Agreement on Time Scales for resumption of work to be
negotiated, a "make-up" will apply in the event of
lay-off (+ 85%).
5. A commitment from the Plc that all Transformer members
who are declared Redundant on a compulsory basis will
be offered jobs as per clause 3 of the S/K/C Agreement
in other Unidare Companies if such become available
within 2 years of termination of dispute.
6. The option of an interest free loan repayable at #5.00
per week be available for those who request it.
7. No victimisation of members or Union Representatives
and no curtailment of Shop steward's rights contained
within the Procedural Agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
As a basis for the earliest possible initial return to work, the
Court recommends as follows:-
1. That the Union accept the recommendation in the final
paragraph of the Foreword (Page 4) to this
recommendation.
2. That for a period of two years from the date of this
recommendation the Company will undertake to reserve
for a member of the Unidare Transformer workforce made
redundant by the present closure any job vacancy that
arises provided he has applied for the job and is a
suitable candidate. That selection be by suitability
only and that the Company set up an appropriate system
for the notification of vacancies.
3. That the Union and Company each accept the undertaking
given by the other to the Court that existing
agreements will be fully honoured and that any dispute
which may arise will be processed through procedures
and if necessary to a full Labour Court Hearing.
4. That any work changes sought by the Company or changes
sought by either the Company or the Union in the
Company procedural agreement be negotiated in a
realistic time-frame through the procedures.
5. That the company in the interest of re-establishing
relationships as quickly as possible will apply
"make-up" to those on lay-off.
6. That where loans are requested to meet particular
hardship, the company should view such request
sympathetically.
7. That there be no victimisation by either side of any
person on the work-force and that there be no
"blacking" of people, work or stock.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
25th May, 1989 ---------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman