Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9158 Case Number: LCR13351 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ABBOTT IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 340 workers in the Sligo plant concerning the wage round agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and particularly the issue of the reduction of weekly working
hours in the context of the terms of the overall proposals made by
the Company. In this respect it is of the opinion that the
Union's case to maintain the break in question is not sustainable.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company's restructured
offer on P11 of the Company's submission (see 'Background') be
amended to provide for a once off payment of #230 and that that
offer as amended be accepted by the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9158 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13351
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: ABBOTT IRELAND LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 340 workers in
the Sligo plant concerning the wage round agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company and Union, in 1987, concluded a three year wage
agreement, seperate to the P.N.R., which gave the majority of
workers increases totalling over 22%. This agreement, which
included elements of productivity and rationalisation, expired on
30th November, 1990. The Union submitted a 15 point claim,
including a claim for a 12.5% wage increase for 12 months. The
Company rejected the Union's claim. Following direct negotiations
the Company's final offer was similar to that made at its Donegal
and Cootehill plants. Its main feature was 3 annual increases of
4% or a share purchase option which would give a cash sum of 4% of
basic or equivalent value in shares in year 1 and a 4% increase in
wages plus a 4% lump sum or equivalent value in share in years 2
and 3. The proposals also provided for improvements in V.H.I. and
service pay, additional voluntary contributions, introduction of
the 39 hour week from December, 1992. The Company's offer was
conditional upon, among other things, the elimination of a third
tea break of 5 minutes duration. The Company indicated that if
its offer was not accepted by 21st December, 1990, it would be
withdrawn. The Union, following a secret ballot vote, rejected
the proposals. The matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 19th December, 1990. The Company
agreed to attend a conciliation conference but stated that since
the Union had rejected the Company's offer they would await the
outcome of national discussions and the Company would apply
whatever terms were agreed under the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). At a conciliation conference held on
9th January, 1991, the Company again confirmed that it would pay
the terms of the P.E.S.P. At a further conciliation conference
held on 28th March, 1991, the Union following protracted
discussions indicated that it was prepared to agree to the
Company's offer of December, 1990, provided the 5 minute tea break
was retained. This was rejected by the Company who offered to
restructure the December, 1990 offer on a non-cost increasing
basis as follows:
- So that the pay increases remained the same
- The improvements in VHI were to be introduced in January,
1992, not January, 1991
- The improvements in service pay were to be introduced in
December, 1991, not December, 1990
- The working hour reduction would take place in December,
1992 not June, 1992
- On that basis the Company would make a once off payment
of #180 to all S.I.P.T.U. members in December, 1992 at
the same time as elimination of the five minute break and
the introduction of the 39 hour week. This amount would
be paid at the time of the working hour reduction.
This was rejected by the Union and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court on 15th April, 1991, for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 19th June,
1991, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS;
3. 1. The Company's offer to buy out the tea break is not
acceptable to the Union. The history of this break goes back
to the set up of the Company in the mid-1970's. As a result
of difficulties experienced by the operators in achieving laid
down standards and because of the distances travelled by the
staff, a 10 minute tea break one hour before the finish of the
relevant shift (3 p.m., 11 p.m. or 7 a.m.) was introduced. No
matter what distance one travelled, the laid down production
standards had to be met to qualify for this break. Through
agreement the break was reduced to 5 minutes.
2. The production standards required to qualify for the break
have altered through the years with substantially increased
targets being vet by the Company. The break was given one
hour before the end of the shift and was based on the
projected production at the end of the shift. If the operator
took the break and did not deliver the production, he would
not continue to get the break until he proved he could achieve
the target on an ongoing basis. The break was also given to
indirect employees as it was felt they had an input into
production.
3. By agreement the break was reduced to 5 minutes. The
Company did indicate that it would be seeking its elimination,
however, the Union has never made any such commitment.
4. The break is not a "free" break. It was introduced as
described and is an "earned" break. It is also there by
custom and practice. To remove it now would be viewed as a
betrayal by the Company. The Court's attention is drawn to
L.C.R. 12525 which ruled against the elimination of tea
breaks. The Union requests the Court to recommend that the
tea break be retained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's main consideration is to increase its
competitiveness and thus protect the existing level of
employment in the plant. In order to do this it must keep
costs, including labour costs under control. This is
especially important in the context of the plant, which is
currently operating at 50% capacity.
2. The Company believed that a 3 year agreement with the
Union was the best means of maintaining competitiveness and
protecting employment and thus entered into discussions with
the Union in November, 1990, on that basis. The offer made by
the Company on a whole range of areas was in the context of a
3 year agreement and on the basis that it was in full and
final settlement of all outstanding claims. The Union
rejected the proposals.
3. The P.E.S.P. which has been agreed by the Union and other
unions in the country is for a 3 year period. Thus the
Company informed the Union that since its original offer had
been rejected, the Company would implement the terms of the
P.E.S.P. and discuss all aspects of it with the Union. This
is the best possible means of maintaining competitiveness.
The Company requests the Court to to uphold this position.
4. At the last conciliation conference which was held on 28th
March, 1991, the Company after much discussion agreed to put
its withdrawn offer back on the table provided it was fully
recommended for acceptance. This did not happen and the
Company, after further discussion, restructured its offer.
This was again rejected by the Union. The Company in light of
the rejection withdrew its offer and informed the Union that
it would apply the terms of the P.E.S.P.
5. Currently all staff have two 15 minute tea breaks in the
course of their working day. In addition to this members of
S.I.P.T.U. have a further 5 minutes break, which all other
staff on site do not have. This 5 minute break causes much
disruption within the plant with people being allocated to
cover different machines and in some areas machines are forced
to stop. To be competitive all equipment must be fully
utilised and inefficiencies, such as this break, must be
eliminated.
6. At the last agreement made with the Union in 1987, this
break was reduced from 10 minutes to the existing 5 minutes.
That agreement also stated the Company's intention to seek the
elimination of the break upon termination of the agreement.
7. The Company has agreed to the introduction of a 39 hour
week in December, 1992, but only on condition that this break
is eliminated at the same time. This is in keeping with the
terms of the introduction of a 39 hour week and the Company's
stated intentions in the last Company/Union agreement. The
Company was not party to the P.N.R. and therefore is not
committed to any reduction in hours worked. There is no
automatic entitlement to any reduction in the working week.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and particularly the issue of the reduction of weekly working
hours in the context of the terms of the overall proposals made by
the Company. In this respect it is of the opinion that the
Union's case to maintain the break in question is not sustainable.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company's restructured
offer on P11 of the Company's submission (see 'Background') be
amended to provide for a once off payment of #230 and that that
offer as amended be accepted by the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
17th July, 1991. Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.