Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91660 Case Number: LCR13544 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DEHYMEATS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of a production bonus.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
made by the parties in their written and oral submissions.
Taking into account the background to the dispute, the extent of
the difference between the parties and the complexity of the issue
in dispute the Court is of the view that an independent assessment
of the work carried out by the claimants is the fairest way in
which to seek resolution of the issues.
The Court accordingly recommends that immediately on receipt of
this recommendation the parties meet and agree to set up a working
party representing Trade Union and Management, including work
study experts, with the objective of examining
(a) the existing work practices throughout the plant
(b) the elimination of limitations on machine utilisation
(c) management's requirement to increase productivity
(d) the current productivity agreement and any change of bonus
attaching thereto.
The Court urges both parties to expedite such an investigation
which should be completed within a period of two months.
Pending the outcome of the investigation the claimants should
continue to carry out their duties as heretofore and the Union
should desist from any industrial action.
If on the receipt of the results of the Union/Management
investigation the parties cannot reach agreement they may
re-submit the issue to the Court.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91660 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13544
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DEHYMEATS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of a production bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Sligo and employs 44 people. It
manufactures dehydrated ingredients from meats for use in packet
soups, stock cubes and instant meals. Seventy-five percent of its
product is exported. Demand is seasonal and workers are normally
on short-time during the summer months. During autumn/winter
extra production is required and a third cooker is brought into
use. Normally two cookers are used which are manned by eight
operators.
3. The cookers are operated over a two shift system with two (2)
cooking operators and two assistant cooking operators per shift
(details supplied to the Court). During peak periods a third
cooker is used as required. When the third cooker is in operation
a bonus scheme applies for the cooking operators/assistant cooking
operators whereby they can earn up to £30 a week each. The bonus
agreement came into effect from September, 1988. The agreement
also provided for an increase of £5 a week in basic pay for the
grades 4 and 5 and a further increase of £5 was agreed in May,
1990. The increases were applied to grades 4 and 5 rates
irrespective of whether or not the third cooker was in use. The
payment of the £30 a week bonus only applies when the third cooker
is in operation.
4. In reaching agreement on the implementation of the 39 hour
week in December, 1990 it was understood by the company that the
productivity agreement may be subject to review following the
expiry of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) on 31st
July, 1991. The Union's understanding was that the productivity
agreement would expire on the same date as the P.N.R. On that
basis the Union lodged a claim for an increase in the bonus
payment to £70 a week for cooking operators/assistant cooking
operators and an increase of £6.67 per week in basic pay for
grades 4 and 5.
5. The company rejected the claim in November, 1991 and as a
consequence the workers refused to operate the third cooker. The
company recruited two temporary operatives to work the third
cooker. An unofficial work stoppage ensued, from the 8th to 14th
November when the workers agreed to resume work and process the
dispute through procedures. (Official strike notice has been
served on the Company but no date has been set for the
recommencement of the action, to allow for the issue of a Labour
Court recommendation).
6. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
13th November, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on 19th
November, 1991. As no agreement was reached, the Commission with
the consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on
17th January, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The present productivity agreement is inadequate. It does
not reflect the increased workload undertaken by the workers
(details supplied to the Court).
2. The company has failed to review the productivity
agreement in line with the agreement reached on the 39 hour
week in December, 1990, when an undertaking was given that it
would be reviewed on the expiry of the P.N.R.
3. The present productivity agreement and the previous
agreement were reached locally without the involvement of a
full-time union official. The payment of £30 a week was based
on the value of productivity at that time. This value has
since increased but the value of the bonus has remained
static.
4. The company has indicated that it may enter into
negotiations on the bonus payment payable to cooking
operators/assistant cooking operators in return for major
changes in work practices. The company refuses to include
the grades 4 and 5 in these negotiations. The union is
prepared to enter into negotiations when the present claim has
been addressed and if grades 4 and 5 are included as they also
contribute to productivity.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The union's claim is unrealistic. The improvement in the
manufacturing process due to new technology has reduced
demands on labour input (details supplied to the Court). The
union has failed to take these improvements into account.
2. The company has sought to remove restrictive practices
which are in place which could maximise efficiency from
technology (details supplied to the Court). The company is
willing to discuss the claim as it applies to the cooking
operators/assistant cooking operators only. Grades 4 and 5
received increases in their basic pay in respect of
productivity. The increases are ongoing and were conceded in
full and final settlement of all such claims.
3. The parent company will consider a proposal to invest
substantially in its Irish operation. It is imperative that
this dispute and the key issues of efficiency, flexibility and
utilisation of labour and plant are resolved in order to show
that the Irish workforce are committed to the company and
thereby secure the investment.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
made by the parties in their written and oral submissions.
Taking into account the background to the dispute, the extent of
the difference between the parties and the complexity of the issue
in dispute the Court is of the view that an independent assessment
of the work carried out by the claimants is the fairest way in
which to seek resolution of the issues.
The Court accordingly recommends that immediately on receipt of
this recommendation the parties meet and agree to set up a working
party representing Trade Union and Management, including work
study experts, with the objective of examining
(a) the existing work practices throughout the plant
(b) the elimination of limitations on machine utilisation
(c) management's requirement to increase productivity
(d) the current productivity agreement and any change of bonus
attaching thereto.
The Court urges both parties to expedite such an investigation
which should be completed within a period of two months.
Pending the outcome of the investigation the claimants should
continue to carry out their duties as heretofore and the Union
should desist from any industrial action.
If on the receipt of the results of the Union/Management
investigation the parties cannot reach agreement they may
re-submit the issue to the Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
3rd February, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.