Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9298 Case Number: LCR13620 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FULFLEX INTERNATIONAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
(1) Application of P.E.S.P. to attendance/service bonus. (2) Loss of earnings due to lay-off in mill room. (3) Test of new calendar operation.
Recommendation:
11. The Court has given careful consideration to the detailed
submissions from the parties.
The Court recommends as follows in relation to the 3 items in
dispute.
(1) Application of P.E.S.P. to Attendance/Service Bonus
The Court is satisfied that the attendance bonus is not
related to the basic rate and consequently this claim is
outside the scope of P.E.S.P.
(2) Loss of Earnings due to Lay off in Mill Room
Having examined the details and background to the lay-off
the Court is satisfied that the Company's action was not
unreasonable. Nevertheless in the interest of Industrial
Relations the Court suggests that on this occasion they
agree to refund 1 days pay lost.
(3) Test of new Calendar Operator
The Companys proposals with regard to implementing the
revised work practices on a trial basis should be agreed
to by the Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9298 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13620
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: FULFLEX INTERNATIONAL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (1) Application of P.E.S.P. to attendance/service bonus.
(2) Loss of earnings due to lay-off in mill room.
(3) Test of new calendar operation.
BACKGROUND:
2. Application of P.E.S.P. to attendance/service bonus.
Following protracted discussions in the period April/October,
1991, during which the workers imposed a ten weeks unofficial ban
on overtime, agreement was reached on the implementation of the
first phase of the P.E.S.P. with effect from the 1st March, 1991.
The Union claims that the 4% increase applied to basic pay should
be applied to the attendance/service bonus. The Union claims that
since they accepted a Rights Commissioner's recommendation in 1985
in respect of the attendance/service bonus, all percentage wage
increases were applied to the attendance/service bonus. The
Company rejected the claim. Local level discussion failed to
resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on 6th
December, 1991 and 16th January, 1992 and as no agreement could be
reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 12th
February, 1992 for investigation and recommendation. The Court
hearing took place on 3rd March, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company always negotiate wage increases annually.
Since 1986 all percentage wage increases were applied to the
attendance/service bonus.
2. All percentage wage increases under P.N.R. which was far
more restricted, were applied to the attendance/service bonus.
3. There was an automatic assumption that the 4% basic
increase would apply to the attendance/service bonus. It was
never formally claimed but the Company have pulled a "stroke",
to say the least, as far as the workers are concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The terms agreed with the Union in October, 1991 refer to
the pay terms of the P.E.S.P. In the course of its
discussions with the Company the Union did not raise the
question of adjusting the attendance/service bonus and the
records show that at no stage was a commitment given by the
Company to make such an adjustment.
2. In the course of the discussions there were many
references made to the stabilisation clause in the P.E.S.P.
agreement which provides that no further cost increasing
claims should be served for the duration of the agreement.
3. The terms of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation made
it clear that from 1986 onwards this matter should be for
negotiation between the parties.
4. The current attendance/service bonus already provides for
a very high level of payment which is made twice a year.
BACKGROUND:
5. Loss of earnings due to lay-off in mill room.
In August, 1991, five mill room operators were laid-off for a
number of hours on two consecutive days. On Thursday 22nd August,
1991 it became necessary to cease calendar operations due to the
inability of the acting calendar leaderman to continue working
because he was ill. In the normal course of events an experienced
calendar operator is called in from another shift but because of
an unofficial ban on overtime this was not possible. Prior to the
commencement of the day shift on 23rd August, 1991, the Company
put forward proposals for running the plant at a reduced output.
These proposals were rejected by the workers and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation
conferences were held on 6th November, 1991 and 16th January, 1992
and as no agreement could be reached the matter was referred to
the Labour Court on 12th February, 1992 for investigation and
recommendation. The Court hearing took place on 3rd March, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has drawn up a comprehensive document covering
all aspects of safety and guidelines on "start up" and
operation of the calendar in the future. It seems ironic that
when workers questioned the safety aspects of running the
calendar, prior to the lay-off, because it would be operated
by untrained personnel and outlined their concern, the
management simply rejected their view as production was their
main priority at that time.
2. Under the Company/Union agreement workers are guaranteed a
forty hour working week and guidelines for the lay-off of
workers are specific under article 10. The Company's action
is in breach of the agreement.
3. Alternative work was available for the workers. The
supervisor had given instructions to the workers in respect of
alternative work before the management's decision to lay-off
the workers.
4. Workers in the mill room fully co-operated with management
during the ban on overtime. On numerous occasions workers
were asked to cover and perform duties outside of their normal
job description.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The key reason which gave rise to the lay-offs was the
decision by the workers to introduce the unofficial ban on
overtime. Had such a ban on overtime not taken place a
variety of options would have existed to ensure that
productive work could have continued and lay-offs would have
been avoided.
2. Every effort was made to secure normal operations and to
avoid lay-offs. The proposals put forward by the Company were
designed to overcome genuine concerns operators may have had
concerning normal calendar operations. The proposals were
acceptable on 15th August, 1991 but were unacceptable when
improved on 23rd August, 1991.
BACKGROUND:
8. Test of new Calendar Operator
In November, 1991 discussion took place on the Company's proposals
to introduce a new 6511 diaper tape product into the calendar
area. The Company proposed that the new product run at a rate of
four shells per hour on one train. Diaper tape products normally
run at a rate of four shells per hour on two trains. The Union
claims that the Company is attempting to introduce new standards
without agreement. The Company claims that the operation as
proposed would not increase the workload. Local level discussion
failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the
Labour Relations Commissions. Conciliation conferences were held
on 6th December, 1991 and 16th January, 1992 and as no agreement
could be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court hearing took place on
3rd March, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. Management want to implement changes on a daily basis,
constantly seeking to achieve total flexibility of the
workforce at no extra cost to the Company.
2. The Company will have to negotiate and agree a formula for
co-operation regarding any new product that the Company may
introduce in the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The long standing custom and practice concerning any
product or technological change is that a work study is
carried out by an industrial engineer following the
implementation of the change. A trial period is used to
determine whether or not the workload has increased or
decreased. If the workload has increased discussions take
place in respect of job regrading and remuneration. This
system has been in operation over the years and many changes
have been successfully agreed and introduced.
2. The workers should undertake to do the work for a
trial period to allow an industrial engineer carry out a work
study to determine if the workload has increased by running
the 6511 product on one train.
3. The Company/Union agreement allows for the Company to
determine the method of production, the location of the
equipment and the machine and tools to use.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court has given careful consideration to the detailed
submissions from the parties.
The Court recommends as follows in relation to the 3 items in
dispute.
(1) Application of P.E.S.P. to Attendance/Service Bonus
The Court is satisfied that the attendance bonus is not
related to the basic rate and consequently this claim is
outside the scope of P.E.S.P.
(2) Loss of Earnings due to Lay off in Mill Room
Having examined the details and background to the lay-off
the Court is satisfied that the Company's action was not
unreasonable. Nevertheless in the interest of Industrial
Relations the Court suggests that on this occasion they
agree to refund 1 days pay lost.
(3) Test of new Calendar Operator
The Companys proposals with regard to implementing the
revised work practices on a trial basis should be agreed
to by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
8th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.