Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92634 Case Number: LCR13872 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBARRY SHOES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning:- (a) The Straight Line Agreement and (b) the introduction of a lower pay structure.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court recommends as
follows:-
STRAIGHT-LINE AGREEMENT
- That the Union accept the addendum to Clause 5 of the
straight-line agreement which was propsoed at
conciliation.
PAY-STRUCTURE
- That the Company postpone its proposal to introduce a
lower pay-structure for new employees for a period of
two years and that, if still deemed necessary, the
proposal be re-examined by the parties at that time.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92634 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13872
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DUBARRY SHOES LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning:-
(a) The Straight Line Agreement and
(b) the introduction of a lower pay structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The two issues were among a total of eight items
referred to the Labour Relations Commission at various dates
in 1991 and 1992. A number of conciliation conferences took
place between September, 1991 and 26th March, 1992 and
agreement was reached on all issues except the two above.
These were referred to the Labour Court on the 13th October,
1992. The Labour Court investigated the matter on the 30th
October, 1992 in Galway.
STRAIGHT LINE AGREEMENT:
2. The 'straight line agreement' provides for the right of
the Company and the Union to do re-timings, work studies etc,.
The Company claim they have the right to do re-timings of any
operation, or part thereof, at any time they wish. The
Company points to the fact that the agreement itself does not
include any prohibition on re-timing. The Union accepts that
there is no stated prohibition written into the agreement, but
point to the fact that re-timings have never been done on the
basis set out by the Company. The only occasion on which a
re-timing can be carried out by agreement, is when there has
been a change in method, material or product. A proposed
addendum to Clause 5 was put forward at conciliation but
subsequently rejected by the workers.
THE INTRODUCTION OF A LOWER PAY STRUCTURE:
3. The Company want to introduce a lower rate of pay (#150
per week) for new entrants and to red circle all current
employees, in order to counteract the effects of low cost
competition from abroad. The Union state that the financial
arguments for this are not valid and that the Company is
attempting to take short-term advantage of developments in
other industries or services where lower pay structures have
been introduced.
STRAIGHT LINE AGREEMENT
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the agreement the Company can only carry out a
re-timing when there has been a change in method, material or
product.
2. The present agreement more than adequately provides for
the Company's needs in that it has, over the years, served
both parties reasonably well.
3. The Company have achieved a good relationship with
staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 5, of the 'straight-line agreement' provides that
the Company can carry out a re-timing if they feel it is
necessary.
2. There is adequate protection within the agreement i.e.
disputes procedure etc., if any changes were to come about as
a result of a re-timing.
THE INTRODUCTION OF A LOWER PAY STRUCTURE
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The performance of the Company of late indicates that it
is successfully trading on the basis of its current labour
costs.
2. A twelve month wage freeze has been in operation since
December, 1991.
3. Recent changes in the social welfare legislation will
mean considerable savings to the Company for the next twenty
four months, in respect of any new staff it wishes to employ.
4. Government assistance will be of benefit to the Company
in the United Kingdom market as it is a successful trading and
exporting Company.
5. The 'straight line agreement', from which the Company
wish to exclude new employees, is self-financing.
6. The workers are opposed in principle to the concept of
cheap labour or different pay rates for doing the same job to
the same standard.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The industry has declined, with employment in it falling
from 5,000 to approximately 350.
2. Companies in the United Kingdom of similar size pay
wages in line with the proposed pay chart produced by the
Company.
3. Clarks Shoes Limited ceased production in Dundalk 5-6
years ago and moved their manufacturing operation to Portugal
because of labour costs.
4. The shoe industry in Ireland is one of the most
depressed industries. The Company pays its operatives rates
which are in excess of those paid in local industries.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court recommends as
follows:-
STRAIGHT-LINE AGREEMENT
- That the Union accept the addendum to Clause 5 of the
straight-line agreement which was propsoed at
conciliation.
PAY-STRUCTURE
- That the Company postpone its proposal to introduce a
lower pay-structure for new employees for a period of
two years and that, if still deemed necessary, the
proposal be re-examined by the parties at that time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
24th November, 1992 ----------------
P. O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.