Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92332 Case Number: LCR13709 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KINGSPAN VEHA LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Productivity payment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claim as put forward is
directly contrary to the terms of P.E.S.P. The Court is further
of the opinion that, as matters presently obtain, there appears to
be a total lack of agreement between the parties as to standards
upon which to base discussions on productivity in the future. At
whatever time such discussions seem appropriate, the Court
recommends that the parties use the services of I.P.C. to provide
the basis for negotiations.
In the light of the above the Court does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92332 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13709
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
PARTIES: KINGSPAN VEHA LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Productivity payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was re-opened by its present owners in 1989. In
April, 1991, the Union submitted a claim for a 3% productivity
payment over and above the terms of the P.E.S.P. The Union claims
that savings are accruing to the Company as a result of ongoing
change in operations and a reduction in manning levels. The
Company rejected the claim. A proposal that the Union's
industrial engineer examine the changes was rejected by the
Company. Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and
the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 18th November, 1991, 13th
January, 1992 and 25th March, 1992 and as no agreement could be
reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 27th May,
1992. The Court hearing took place on 23rd June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has accepted that the changes in work
practices introduced have produced savings and that other
changes due to be put in place would do likewise. What is now
necessary is to determine the extent of the savings and if
they are sufficient to finance the claim for a 3% increase.
2. The Company/Union agreement Clause 7.0 reads as follows:
"The Company requires all employees to co-operate in
every way possible to raise productivity and to maximise
output. The policy of the Company is continual
improvement. To this end work practices will change
constantly to achieve improvements. Employees accept
the necessity for interchangeability between jobs and
that allocation of jobs is the exclusive right and
responsibility of the Company. Persons are hired as
employees of the Company and not for specific jobs.
Changes in technology and new technology are a normal
part of the job".
3. The Company's interpretation of Clause 7.0 is both
unrealistic and unacceptable. In its extreme it would
determine that regardless of the extent of productivity
achieved, the employees would have no right whatsoever to
pursue productivity related increases.
4. The Company requires that all employees co-operate in
every way possible to raise productivity and to maximise
output. Work practices will change constantly to achieve
these improvements but the Company has failed to address the
question of how these efforts will be rewarded.
The P.E.S.P. does not prohibit the processing of legitimate
productivity claims and there is nothing in the Company/Union
agreement which prohibits such claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All employees enter into a pre-employment agreement. That
agreement must be adhered to if the Company's intention to
raise the level of productivity from a low base to a level
which will put the Company in a position to compete in a
highly competitive market, is to be realised. Few changes
have been made and until all changes and necessary
improvements are made, the Company remains in an uncompetitive
situation. Present and much needed further investment in the
Company is contingent upon each and every employee fully
complying with the agreement.
3. The Company has honoured the terms of the P.E.S.P. and has
indicated a willingness to discuss with the Union the 3% local
bargaining clause in the P.E.S.P.
4. The Company has introduced on its own initiative a pension
scheme to which it contributes.
5. The Company is operating within the building industry
which is in the middle of a long slump. Several radiator
factories have closed down recently due to heavy losses. The
Company has lost money each month this year and is in an
overall loss making position since it started up.
6. The only reason for method changes and new equipment is to
become more competitive and to stay in business. The Company
should not be penalised for spending money to try to stay in
business.
7. This claim is inappropriate having regard to the nature of
the industry within which the Company operates, the low base
from which (in productivity terms) the Company is trying to
build an efficient and competitive operation.
8. The claim is in breach of the terms and conditions of the
P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claim as put forward is
directly contrary to the terms of P.E.S.P. The Court is further
of the opinion that, as matters presently obtain, there appears to
be a total lack of agreement between the parties as to standards
upon which to base discussions on productivity in the future. At
whatever time such discussions seem appropriate, the Court
recommends that the parties use the services of I.P.C. to provide
the basis for negotiations.
In the light of the above the Court does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
20th July, 1992. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.