Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92596 Case Number: LCR13855 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LTD/GRANTS (IRELAND) LTD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
The payment of the 3% increase in basic pay under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
Recommendation:
5. In dealing with this dispute the Court is of the view that
there is a basis for settlement in the terms which emanated from
conciliation and are set out in a letter to the parties dated
23/6/92. During the course of the hearing the claims contained in
this letter which were still in dispute were identified.
(1) Date of implementation of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
(2) General fears of staff in distribution.
(3) Removing/Replacing Operator Friendly Parts (Clause 3 (v)).
The Court recommends as follows:
That the parties accept the contents of the letter of 23/6/92,
subject to the following amendments.
(1) Implementation date of Clause (3) - 23/6/92.
(2) Clause 2(v) be subject of separate discussions to be concluded
not later than 31/12/92. This date to apply to all separate
discussions.
(3) The Court notes the Company's assurance as regards the
prospect of job losses in the distribution area.
The Court is satisfied as to the Company's bona-fides in this
matter and urges the employees to also accept these
assurances.
The Court urges the parties to accept the above amended proposals
in settlement of the dispute.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92596 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13855
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LTD/GRANTS (IRELAND) LTD)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. The payment of the 3% increase in basic pay under Clause 3 of
the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 1991, the Company indicated its willingness to
pay the 3% pay increase under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P., in return
for new productivity measures. The Unions were not prepared to
agree to the Company's proposals, and claimed that the 3% should
be conceded in return for the contribution of the workforce to
profitability, competitiveness ongoing co-operation, flexibility
and the achievement of I.S.O. 9OO2. The Unions also claimed that
the 3% increase should be backdated to December, 1991.
The Company wrote to the Union on the 16th December, 1991,
outlining productivity items required by the Company before the
Clause 3 3% could be implemented. The Union considered the
Company's proposals and there followed a meeting between the two.
The Union requested the implementation of the Clause 3 3% pay
increase, and suggested that the issues contained in the Company's
letter be referred for later discussions. The Company rejected
the Union's request.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission in
January, 1992 and conciliation conferences followed (March and
June, 1992) at which the Company agreed to modify its proposals,
and following which both sides agreed to recommend a set of
proposals. The proposals were rejected by ballot of the
workforce.
A final conciliation conference was held in September, 1992 at
which the Union sought to re-negotiate the proposals previously
agreed with the Company. Agreement was not reached and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th September,
1992 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute in Clonmel on the 2nd of
November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is asking that 31 workers concede a great deal
in order that a workforce of 240 will receive the P.E.S.P. 3%
increase. Specifically the Company are seeking the following:
Showerings:
A. The reduction by two of the number of Washer Attendant
shift positions. This would lead to an increased workload
and responsibility for the remaining shift workers. There
would also be a significant loss of earnings and overtime;
B. The assuming of new duties by the Line 2 Filler Shift
Operator, which would lead to the downgrading of a Grade 3
worker, and the requirement of one less casual worker;
C. A new conveyer lay-out on Line 2 which would lead to the
removal of one operative;
D. The operation of the new carbo-cooling unit which would
result in the loss of earnings for the shift and process
operatives;
Grants:
E. Changes in work practices at Grants similar to changes in
work practices at Showerings, which would lead to a threat
to casual workers in the area;
Distribution/Clonmel:
F. Concessions in relation to Central Warehousing, without
giving assurances that jobs and earnings will not be
threatened;
Company-wide
G. The withdrawal of 'dinner-money' where overtime is
concerned, which could lead to workers performing duties
whilst undernourished;
H. The shortening of toilet-breaks which is tantamount to
clawing back the hour received due to the shorter working
week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the outset, the Company made it clear that the 3%
under Clause 3 would be paid in return for concrete
productivity. Clause 3 must "take full account of the
implication for competitiveness, the need for flexibility and
change, and the contribution made by Employees to such
change".
2. No jobs will be lost as a consequence of the Union's
acceptance of the proposals. In the Transport side,
reassurance is given that the Company is willing to make three
additional permanent appointments.
3. A large group of employees stand to benefit through the 3%
increase at a substantial cost to the Company. Other workers
within the Company have responded in a concrete and positive
way to the Company's proposals under Clause 3. The Company is
facing a surge in competition from imported products. The 3%
increase adds considerably to Company overheads in return for
modest concessions.
4. The implementation of the Clause 3% increase would apply
only from the date of formal acceptance by the Unions of the
Company's proposals.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In dealing with this dispute the Court is of the view that
there is a basis for settlement in the terms which emanated from
conciliation and are set out in a letter to the parties dated
23/6/92. During the course of the hearing the claims contained in
this letter which were still in dispute were identified.
(1) Date of implementation of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
(2) General fears of staff in distribution.
(3) Removing/Replacing Operator Friendly Parts (Clause 3 (v)).
The Court recommends as follows:
That the parties accept the contents of the letter of 23/6/92,
subject to the following amendments.
(1) Implementation date of Clause (3) - 23/6/92.
(2) Clause 2(v) be subject of separate discussions to be concluded
not later than 31/12/92. This date to apply to all separate
discussions.
(3) The Court notes the Company's assurance as regards the
prospect of job losses in the distribution area.
The Court is satisfied as to the Company's bona-fides in this
matter and urges the employees to also accept these
assurances.
The Court urges the parties to accept the above amended proposals
in settlement of the dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
16th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.