Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92101 Case Number: LCR13592 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ODLUMS (PORTARLINGTON) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a productivity payment and other issues.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the terms offered in the I.R.O.'s letter of 6th
January should be accepted by the Union and that the proposed
changes in work practices etc. be implemented without further
delay. The Court so recommends.
The Court further recommends that direct discussions on payment of
wages by Credit Transfer be continued.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92101 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13592
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ODLUMS (PORTARLINGTON) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a productivity payment and other issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1991 the Company advised the Union of proposals for
implementing a major rationalisation plan at its mills in Dublin,
Cork and Portarlington. The plan involved a total of 53
redundancies (21 at Portarlington) and major changes in working
practices. The Company stated that its proposals were essential
in order to remain competitive. Following numerous local level
meetings at which no agreement was reached the issues were
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th December,
1991. Conciliation conferences were held on the 9th, 16th
December, and 2nd January, 1992. Following the conciliation
conferences the Industrial Relations Officer put forward a set of
settlement proposals dated 6th January, 1992 (Appendix A) which
were accepted by the workers in Dublin and Cork but rejected by
the Portarlington workers following a ballot. A further
conciliation conference held on the 13th January, 1992 failed to
resolve the Portarlington issue. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the he 12th
February, 1992. The Court investigated the dispute on the 4th
March, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has accepted many of Management's
rationalisation proposals in relation to numbers for
redundancy, severance terms, manning levels and seven day
shift cycle. However, the lump sum payments in respect of
work changes, rates of pay and the use of contract cleaners
have been rejected by the workers concerned. One other
outstanding issue concerns job scheduling at the mill. The
Company's proposal to leave one worker to operate the mill and
control and operate fast moving equipment is unacceptable.
There are obvious safety risks inherent in this operation by
one person which must be looked at. The Union would also
point out that there is a substantial loss to workers as a
result of losing Saturday overtime when the new shift system
is implemented. There will also be problems with the work
schedule in the warehouse and packing departments because of
the reduced workforce and because of the extra products coming
from the the Dublin Mill. This arrangement will require a
substantial increase in productivity on the part of the
workers concerned.
2. The Company's proposed change in the method of payment of
wages is rejected by the workers concerned because of problems
outside of banking hours in Portarlington. The Union is
prepared to to discuss pay path on a weekly basis but not on a
four week cycle. There must also be monetary compensation.
3. There is a strong objection to the use of contract
cleaners, on the basis of protecting employment at the Mill.
The Company could achieve its objectives quite adequately by
retraining the long term temporary workers threatened with
compulsory redundancy.
4. The Union is prepared to have discussions at local level
with Management on the non pay issues. However in view of the
substantial level of change and increased productivity
expected of the workers concerned the Union is claiming lump
sum payments as follows:
Operators - £4,000 lead-in payment
All other categories - £3,000 " " "
The lump sums claimed are justifiable in view of the
significant level of increased productivity together with
dramatic staff level reductions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rationalisation programme as announced by the Company
in 1991 is essential to its long term survival. Competitors
can produce high volumes of product at significantly lower
cost, and can consequently sell at a lower price. Savings
throughout the Company are a prerequisite to success and the
ability to compete. The Company has amended its position
significantly during conciliation negotiations and the
proposals, dated 6th January, 1992, which emanated from the
conciliation conferences well exceeded the Company's original
offer. They were difficult to sell to Senior Management but
it was accepted that these proposals were the only way of
reaching agreement on the overall rationalisation programme
throughout the three Mills.
2. The proposals have been accepted by the workers in Dublin
and Cork where the necessary redundancies have taken place and
employees are currently being trained to operate the new
system. The Company cannot increase the amount of the lump
sum payments to the workers concerned. To do so would totally
undermine the object of the rationalisation programme and
would put the long term viability of the Company at risk. In
addition, if the Court were to recommend an alteration of the
terms, this would have a very destabilising effect on the Cork
and Dublin Mills. The proposals of 6th January, 1992 are fair
and reasonable. Accordingly, the Company requests the Court
to recommend that the proposals be accepted by the workers
concerned and that the rationalisation programme be
implemented without further delay.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the light of the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the terms offered in the I.R.O.'s letter of 6th
January should be accepted by the Union and that the proposed
changes in work practices etc. be implemented without further
delay. The Court so recommends.
The Court further recommends that direct discussions on payment of
wages by Credit Transfer be continued.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
9th March, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
APPENDIX A
6th January, 1992.
Re: Odlum's
Further to the conciliation conference held on 2nd January, 1992 I
wish to set out the final settlement proposals as follows:
1. Lump sums of £750 from date of acceptance £500 12 months later
and £250 12 months later will be paid to all permanent
employees. Each employee may opt to take these payments as a
lump sum on each occasion or by way of additional voluntary
contributions of £5 per week with the employee continuing the
A.V.C.s himself at the end of three years.
2. Sick Pay:
Eight weeks pay at full personal basic pay will be paid for
certified absences per annum.
Anyone exceeding 8 weeks sick leave in year 1 will revert to 4
weeks entitlement in year 2 but will revert to 8 weeks when
sick leave does not exceed 4 weeks in a subsequent year.
3. The sides will have immediate local negotiations on
improvements to the Pension Scheme. The Company will adopt a
positive approach to improving the present scheme particularly
in the areas of mortality benefit and widow's pension.
4. The 3% due under the Second phase of the P.E.S.P. will apply
from 1st January, 1992. In addition the 3% under clause 3 of
the P.E.S.P. will be implemented.
5. The above is in respect of acceptance of the Company proposals
on manning and job descriptions as discussed locally which
will be confirmed in writing by management.
6. In respect of 7 day working a lead-in payment of £500 will
apply from date of introduction of 7 day working in any plant.
7. For people coming off 7 day shift working a phase down of 6
weeks full premium and 6 weeks half premium will apply.
With regard to point (1) the option of A.V.C.s involves £5 per
week being taken out of the lump sums so that a lump sum balance
would be due to employees opting for AVCs in years one and two.
Should these proposals be rejected by either side they will be
withdrawn and the matter can be progressed on the basis of the
final positions of each side at conciliation.
Yours sincerely
______________________________
Joe McDermott
Industrial Relations Officer