Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92281 Case Number: LCR13668 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LIEBHERR CONTAINER CRANES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a bonus scheme.
Recommendation:
5. It is the view of the Court having considered all aspects of
the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written
submissions that it is imperative that any disputes which may
arise from time to time are resolved by the parties through the
use of the agreed procedures. The Court notes the healthy state
of the Company order book and calls on both parties to take such
steps as are necessary to ensure a climate is created conducive to
the attraction of further investment, the security of current
employment and the development of further employment
opportunities. To this end and with a view to resolving the
current dispute the Court makes the following recommendations.
1. That there be an immediate resumption of normal working
including the restoration of the work standards which applied
prior to the dispute.
2. That for the future, production standards established by the
Company be worked by all employees.
3. That in the event that there is a dispute regarding production
standards, the standards be worked and the issue resolved
through the agreed procedures.
4. That all employees co-operate with such studies as are
necessary, to validate production standards, or provide the
information necessary to the proposed review of the Labour
Cost Control Scheme, and that the discussions in respect of
the productivity review/restructure be completed as soon as
possible.
5. That all wage cards issued up to the date of the issue of this
Recommendation be returned for all work completed.
6. That the employees co-operate with the Company in respect of
the employment of temporary workers in accordance with the
provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement between the parties.
The Court considers that in accordance with the terms of the
Company/Union agreement the standards established by the Company
should have been worked and any dispute as outlined above resolved
through the use of the procedures.
The Court also considers that the Company, in amending the
standards, could have dealt with such an emotive issue in a more
sensitive manner. In the interests of developing more harmonious
relations the Court considers that as a gesture of goodwill, on
acceptance of the above proposals, the issue should be resolved by
a bonus of #70 per week being paid to each of the employees
concerned for the period from the date of the commencement of the
dispute to the date of issue of this recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92281 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13668
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: LIEBHERR CONTAINER CRANES LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a bonus scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 254 workers and manufactures container
cranes for market world-wide. A bonus scheme is in operation
throughout the plant which yields potential earnings of up to 150%
of basic pay. The dispute concerns approximately twenty workers
who are employed in Department 31. In March, 1992 the Company
introduced a change in the bonus scheme, by reducing times for
jobs, which resulted in a reduction in the earnings of the workers
concerned. The workers refused to operate the new scheme. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on the
15th April, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on the 1st
May, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The issue was referred to
the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 13th
May, 1992. The Court investigated the dispute on the 21st May,
1992. A letter recommendation was issued on the 4th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Of the total workforce in the factory approximately 80
workers are on measured work. The Union accepts that a
detailed survey of the entire operation in the plant is
needed. This was to have taken place under the agreed I.P.C.
investigation of the Labour Cost Control Scheme (L.C.C.S.)
(details supplied to the Court) which commenced in January,
1992 and it should have included the total workforce.
Management has concentrated its attentions solely on workers
who are working to targets and are timed. The Company by its
action in reducing times without consultation with the Union
has created a tense situation in the production areas. The
Union is not opposed to changes in work practices but they
must be agreed in consultation with the Union. The findings
of the Irish Productivity Centre are not presently available
to the Union.
2. As a result of the Company's decision to reduce times on
jobs by 20% the workers concerned have refused to operate the
bonus scheme. The Company's proposal to restore times enjoyed
prior to the dispute is acceptable to the Union but the
compensation offered which amounts to 129% on the unmeasured
scale has been rejected by the workers concerned following a
ballot. The Union's claim is for 135% on the measured scale.
This is a fair and reasonable figure considering that many
workers can achieve in the region of 140-150%. The Union is
then prepared to discuss all matters in a positive and
constructive manner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has traded at a loss or with very small
profits in recent years due to market reasons and low
productivity levels. Various audits were undertaken including
an investigation by the I.P.C. showing that there is a
potential productivity increase of 15%-25% required and that
it is possible to achieve. The Company informed the Union of
this situation in writing in October, 1991. The Company also
explained that it had significant orders requiring full
production, additional workers on temporary contracts, sub
contract work, new investment and re-arranged production
facilities. The production of container cranes is
individually designed for each contract, the setting of
production times is difficult and must allow for variations,
flexibility, time and method studies etc.
2. The workers concerned in Department 31 achieve bonus
targets of between 142-150% yielding a gross weekly wage of
#316. With 10 hours overtime the average gross earnings are
#429 p.w. They have higher bonus returns than other
departments. Since the commencement of the dispute the
workers have not returned their job cards (issued for each
operation) preventing a calculation of their bonus
performances and that of other production workers paid on
factory average within the Company's Labour Cost Control
Scheme. The Company has manually recorded work performed
since March and workers have performed between 55-123% giving
bonus earnings of approximate #74 p.w.. Production output has
dropped to approximately 50-60% of normal levels causing
substantial delays in production and contract programmes.
3. The refusal of the workers to operate the bonus scheme has
prevented the investigation by the I.P.C., the establishment
of production data by the Company, the employment of 30-40
additional temporary workers and the balancing of production
levels to suit production programmes. It should be noted that
the reduction by the Company in production times (less than
recommended by I.P.C.) amounts only to 54.89 hours within a
period during which Department 31 had a total attendance time
of 5886 hours. The reduction amounts to less than 1% of total
time worked. It should also be noted that another department
works with the reduced times without returning any lower
performances.
4. The Company is asking the Court to recommend, (a) an
immediate return to full productivity (b) co-operation with
the proposed review of the L.C.C.S., including time and method
studies by the Company or other contracted specialists, (c)
the return of wage cards for all work completed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is the view of the Court having considered all aspects of
the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written
submissions that it is imperative that any disputes which may
arise from time to time are resolved by the parties through the
use of the agreed procedures. The Court notes the healthy state
of the Company order book and calls on both parties to take such
steps as are necessary to ensure a climate is created conducive to
the attraction of further investment, the security of current
employment and the development of further employment
opportunities. To this end and with a view to resolving the
current dispute the Court makes the following recommendations.
1. That there be an immediate resumption of normal working
including the restoration of the work standards which applied
prior to the dispute.
2. That for the future, production standards established by the
Company be worked by all employees.
3. That in the event that there is a dispute regarding production
standards, the standards be worked and the issue resolved
through the agreed procedures.
4. That all employees co-operate with such studies as are
necessary, to validate production standards, or provide the
information necessary to the proposed review of the Labour
Cost Control Scheme, and that the discussions in respect of
the productivity review/restructure be completed as soon as
possible.
5. That all wage cards issued up to the date of the issue of this
Recommendation be returned for all work completed.
6. That the employees co-operate with the Company in respect of
the employment of temporary workers in accordance with the
provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement between the parties.
The Court considers that in accordance with the terms of the
Company/Union agreement the standards established by the Company
should have been worked and any dispute as outlined above resolved
through the use of the procedures.
The Court also considers that the Company, in amending the
standards, could have dealt with such an emotive issue in a more
sensitive manner. In the interests of developing more harmonious
relations the Court considers that as a gesture of goodwill, on
acceptance of the above proposals, the issue should be resolved by
a bonus of #70 per week being paid to each of the employees
concerned for the period from the date of the commencement of the
dispute to the date of issue of this recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
25th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.