Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91186 Case Number: LCR13323 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TURNEX LIMITED - and - SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of the first phase of the Programme for Economic and Socil Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the written submissions and verbal
arguments of the parties is of the view that the industrial
relations climate is not conducive to the settlement of disputes
and has largely contributed to the polarisation of the parties.
The Court is of the view that problems cannot be solved by
unofficial stoppages, restrictive practices or work to rule
actions and notes that the Union has stated that this form of
industrial action will not be a feature of future employee
conduct.
The Court would expect that where a dispute exists a policy of
"working under protest" would be adopted as a last resort and the
disputes procedure invoked without delay.
The Company for its part should rely on progressive rather than
punitive proposals in attempting to resolve its worsening
industrial relations climate.
In relation to the present dispute the Court considers that the
Company should vary its final proposal (Appendix V of Company
submission) as follows:-
Clause 5 to be withdrawn.
Clause 8 (iii) together with clause 9 are more appropriate
for discussion and should be brought to a conclusion within
the Company/Union agreement on flexibility.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91186 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13323
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TURNEX LIMITED
and
SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of the first phase of
the Programme for Economic and Socil Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 40 people, manufacturing turned metal
components for the automotive, hydraulics and mining industries in
the U.K., Continental Europe and the Scandinavian countries. The
Company is a subsidiary of a German parent Company.
2. The Union has 29 members and is seeking the application of
the first phase increase of 4% due under the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress from 1st March, 1991. The Company
are seeking a pay freeze because of the unfavourable economic
climate affecting the industry. Office staff who are not
unionised had conceded a 6 month pay freeze from 1st January,
1991.
3. The issue was referred to the Industrial Relations
Commission on 1st March, 1991 and a conciliation conference was
held on 19th March, 1991. No resolution was possible and both
parties requested a referral to the Labour Court. Subsequently
further negotiation took place locally and a proposal was put to
the workforce on 8th May, 1991. After negotiation, a final and
revised proposal was made by the Company on 15th May, 1991. This
was rejected by the workforce on 16th May and the offer was
formally withdrawn by the Company. The Company's offer involved
full implementation of the PESP, conditional on clauses regarding
management rights and discipline (details supplied). The dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on 4th April, 1991. A Court
investigation took place in Waterford on 22nd May, 1991 (the
earliest available date).
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company initially sought a pay freeze without
retrospection for 6 months from 1st March, 1991. Subsequently
the Company offered to concede the terms of the first phase of
the PESP but on conditions which were unacceptable to the
workers (details supplied to the Court). In an effort to be
helpful, the Union proposed an agreement which met in full the
terms of the PESP and which went some way towards promoting
industrial peace and harmony within the Company. The Company
choose to add on clauses which the workers could not accept.
2. The workers are seeking full implementation of the PESP.
The Company are trying to add productivity/disciplinary type
clauses to the Company/Union Agreement.
3. The additions to the agreement were first proposed on
16th May, 1991. The PESP should be accepted by the Company as
it was negotiated nationally. Other issues should be pursued
through the proper industrial relations procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Irish operation is a subsidiary of a German parent
but must operate on a strictly stand alone basis. The German
parent has had difficulties in its own operation. The
contribution from the Irish operation has been negligible over
the years. The Company is facing severe operational
difficulties (details supplied to the Court). In order to
survive and progress the utmost pressure must be exerted on
all elements of cost efficiency and the development of new
business. In order to do this, the intrinsic and existing
rights of management must be preserved and the workers must
comply with existing agreements including procedures for the
resolution of grievances. The need to enshrine these rights
in specific detail is derived from a series of disruptive
incidents in recent years.
2. The implementation of the PESP at this time presents a
severe and unacceptable risk to corporate and employment
continuity. The Company is prepared to implement the
agreement when trading conditions have improved sufficiently.
Unofficial industrial action, breaches of agreements and
obstruction of Management's rights are an inadequate basis for
the continuance and development of the Company and its
prospects for recovery from its present difficulties.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the written submissions and verbal
arguments of the parties is of the view that the industrial
relations climate is not conducive to the settlement of disputes
and has largely contributed to the polarisation of the parties.
The Court is of the view that problems cannot be solved by
unofficial stoppages, restrictive practices or work to rule
actions and notes that the Union has stated that this form of
industrial action will not be a feature of future employee
conduct.
The Court would expect that where a dispute exists a policy of
"working under protest" would be adopted as a last resort and the
disputes procedure invoked without delay.
The Company for its part should rely on progressive rather than
punitive proposals in attempting to resolve its worsening
industrial relations climate.
In relation to the present dispute the Court considers that the
Company should vary its final proposal (Appendix V of Company
submission) as follows:-
Clause 5 to be withdrawn.
Clause 8 (iii) together with clause 9 are more appropriate
for discussion and should be brought to a conclusion within
the Company/Union agreement on flexibility.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
19th June, 1991 -------------
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman