Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92708 Case Number: LCR13882 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a revised Company/Union Agreement.
Recommendation:
12. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
made by the parties during the course of the original and resumed
hearing. The Court acknowledges that considerable progress was
made by the parties in the period between the two hearings. The
Court recommends as follows with regard to the outstanding items
of the proposed new Company/Union agreement.
Clause 8.1 & 8.2.
Flexibility: The Court is satisfied that the overriding
objective of the proposed new agreement is to
achieve trained operator flexibility. It
accordingly recommends that the Union accept
the two clauses as drafted. The Court notes
the Company's undertaking to avoid unnecessary
extended working periods on any one machine and
that the maintenance work required of G.Os
would be limited in nature.
The Court recommends that the Union accept the
monetary terms offered to the Fork Lift drivers
for loss of overtime.
In order to satisfy the employees'
understanding of shop loading to 75 performance
the Court further recommends that the Company
accede to the Union's request to have two
employees trained to the same level as the
supervisors in evaluating the work standards.
Should there be a disagreement on standards the
normal disputes procedure will apply.
Clause 9.2 -
Contractors: Given the restricted nature of this clause and
the Union's stated right to pursue claims the
Court recommends that it be accepted.
Clause 15.2 -
Handover The Court is of the view that continuity at
handover is essential. Provisions for dealing
with the "handover" are contained in the
existing agreement and the Court accordingly
considers that the Union may opt to retain that
clause or opt for the new proposals contained
in Clause 15.2.
Clause 28.5 -
Procedures The Court recommends the addition of a sentence
to meet the Union's claim that when matters of
general factory wide application are the
subject of a claim the full Committee as at
present constituted form the negotiating team.
The Court understands that such occasions would
be limited. In all other situations the
negotiating group will be that set out in the
agreement.
Compensation
Package
Grade 1 - #200 lead-in payment from date of acceptance of
agreement plus #100, 6 months after the
training programme commences.
Grades 1 - 5 3% (Clause 3, P.E.S.P.) to apply to basic rates
from date of acceptance of the agreement. A
further 3% to be applied to basic rates 12
months after the application of the 3%
(P.E.S.P.).
Grade 2 - Company's offer be accepted. The individual at
present temporarily filling a Grade 2 post be
treated in a similar manner.
The Court urges acceptance of the above proposals to the parties
as an equitable basis for resolving this critical dispute.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92708 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13882
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a revised
Company/Union Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located at Ballyconnell, Co. Cavan, and employs
120 workers in the manufacture of plastic containers for the
pharmaceutical, medical care, soft-drink, liquid milk and
agri-chemical sectors. The Company is part of a Northern Ireland
based Group which has three plants in Northern Ireland, with one
in England and one in France.
3. Due to expanding business the Company decided on an investment
programme to meet the demand for product. The Plant at
Ballyconnell was chosen for the investment. The programme will be
of four years duration and will cost #8 million. It is projected
that an additional 30-35 jobs will be created.
4. The Company met with the Union in March, 1992 to discuss the
implementation of a revised Company/Union Working Agreement. In
the Company's view this was necessary in order to meet modern
working facilities and maximise the efficient use of the
investment. A number of meetings were held at local level. As no
agreement was reached the dispute was referred on 26th May, 1992
to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were
held on 10th, 17th, 25th and 26th June, 1992, 1st and 13th July,
1992 and 21st August, 1992. A further meeting was held on 6th
October, 1992 following which the workforce, after a ballot,
rejected the Company's proposal. The Commission, with the consent
of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 22nd
October, 1992 for investigation and recommendation under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took
place in Cavan on 23rd October, 1992.
5. At the Court hearing the Union indicated that it had reverted
to its original position, i.e. rejection of the new Agreement,
retention of the current Agreement (in place since 1978) and the
implementation of a 3% increase under Clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The Court adjourned
the hearing and subsequently wrote to the parties expressing its
concern that in view of the lengthy negotiations which had taken
place the Union had reverted to its original position. The Court
accepted that if new investment was to be confirmed new work
practices would have to be agreed and urged the parties to resume
negotiations. The Court also stated that it would be available,
if required to assist in the negotiations.
6. Further meetings were held at local level resulting in a
ballot of the workforce who accepted the new agreement subject to
a number of issues being resolved. The parties requested the
Court to investigate and recommend on the outstanding issues. A
resumed Court hearing took place on 23rd November, 1992. The
issues investigated are as follows:
(i) Clause 8.1 and 8.2 - Flexibility
(ii) Clause 9.2 - Contractors
(iii) Clause 15.2 - Handover of machines at end and beginning
of shifts.
(iv) Clause 28.5 - Dispute Procedures. Dispute regarding
full committee representation.
(v) Compensation Package - The Company offered:-
Grade 1: #200 lead-in payment from date
of acceptance of agreement.
#100 after successful completion
of training. (All payments are
gross).
Grades 1-5: 2% (Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.) from
date of agreement. 2% (1%
Clause 3 + 1% special) from date
of agreement plus 6 months.
Grade 2
Operators: Who would be required to revert
to Grade 1 would have the option
of either being red circled on
Grade 2 or a buy out in
accordance with the agreed
formula.
The Union claimed an increase of 9% (inclusive of Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P.) applicable to all grades; 6% from date of acceptance of
agreement and 3% payable 9 months after date of acceptance.
- Lead-in payment of #300 from date of acceptance of
agreement,
- Mixers (Grade 2): At present there are 6 employed, one of
whom is in an acting up position for
the past 6 months. The Union is
seeking up-grading for this operator.
(The Company rejected this element of
the claim as it proposes eliminating
this grade over time).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Clauses 8.1 and 8.2 regarding flexibility, if implemented
will have far reaching effects on present work practices.
Currently machine operators can rotate on machines from week
to week. Under these clauses they will be confined to one
machine for weeks on end and the clauses also allow general
operatives to work on machines. The workers consider that
this will lead to an uneven distribution of the workload,
restrictions on shift swapping and requirements to carry out
work outside of grade structure.
2. The clauses will also lead to loss of overtime
opportunities for fork-lift drivers. The Union is seeking
adequate compensation in respect of this loss.
3. The Union is also seeking that one person per shift be
trained so that they will be able to monitor output which is
based on a B.S.I. system (details supplied to the Court).
4. The Company is, under Clause 9.2., seeking to sub-contract
work in exceptional circumstances. The Union sought
assurances that this clause would not be used to undermine
jobs, earnings and potential earnings. Assurances have been
given on the first two. However the workers are seeking a
similar assurance regarding potential earnings.
5. Under Clause 15.2. the Company is seeking that in the
event of an operator failing to report for shift, that the
worker who is due to be relieved from his/her post, remain on
the machine for up to 20 minutes to allow the Company time to
find a replacement. The main objection to this arrangement is
that as most workers live within a 15-20 mile radius of the
factory and operate car pools, a worker delayed under this
clause would miss out on a lift home which would cause great
inconvenience due to the lack of public transport. The Union
proposes that the current arrangement remains in place or
alternatively that the revised arrangement is accepted subject
to a review at the end of two months.
6. The Union, under Clause 28.5, is seeking the presence of
the full Representative Committee at meetings where
discussions are taking place on issues that effect the entire
workforce.
7. The Union considers that its claim in respect of the
monetary element for implementation of the new agreement is
fair and reasonable in view of the major changes in work
practices conceded and the Company's profitability.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company under Clause 8.1 and 8.2 is striving to
achieve total flexibility in view of the huge investment
involved. The Company is seeking that workers can operate a
small number of machines of similar type in order to improve
efficiency and cut down on waste.
2. Workers will only be required to carry out those duties
for which they are trained.
3. The Company considers the claim in respect of fork-lift
drivers to be invalid as there is no proof of loss of
earnings. In an attempt to resolve this issue the Company has
offered a once-off payment of #300 to the workers concerned.
4. The Company does not see any need to train workers to
monitor output as an industrial engineer meets with a shop
steward on a monthly basis to discuss this issue. In the
Company's view the present system works quite well.
5. Under Clause 9.2. the Company is seeking the right to use
contractors for small short uneconomic runs or to fulfil
orders while its own plant is being prepared. There is a
provision in the clause to allow for consultation with the
Union and if necessary for them to pursue claims if deemed
necessary.
6. Under Clause 15.2. the Company is seeking to bring the
method of handover at end of shift into line with standards
prevailing in industry generally. This will improve quality
and monitor accountability. The Company envisages very little
use of the requirement that workers remain on duty for 20
minutes after the end of shift, as it has a "floating pool" of
workers.
7. Under Clause 28.5. the Company is seeking that the Union
Committee nominate a negotiating team as presently the
Committee comprises of approximately 10% of the workforce.
This requirement is in keeping with normal practices.
8. The Company has offered a generous compensation package in
return for the concessions sought. The offer is made against
a background of the Company's need to remain competitive.
9. The nature of the Company's product is such that it
requires heavy capital investment to meet the changing demands
of its customers and to adapt to new business.
10. The Company's pay rates compare favourably with those
prevailing in industry generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
12. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
made by the parties during the course of the original and resumed
hearing. The Court acknowledges that considerable progress was
made by the parties in the period between the two hearings. The
Court recommends as follows with regard to the outstanding items
of the proposed new Company/Union agreement.
Clause 8.1 & 8.2.
Flexibility: The Court is satisfied that the overriding
objective of the proposed new agreement is to
achieve trained operator flexibility. It
accordingly recommends that the Union accept
the two clauses as drafted. The Court notes
the Company's undertaking to avoid unnecessary
extended working periods on any one machine and
that the maintenance work required of G.Os
would be limited in nature.
The Court recommends that the Union accept the
monetary terms offered to the Fork Lift drivers
for loss of overtime.
In order to satisfy the employees'
understanding of shop loading to 75 performance
the Court further recommends that the Company
accede to the Union's request to have two
employees trained to the same level as the
supervisors in evaluating the work standards.
Should there be a disagreement on standards the
normal disputes procedure will apply.
Clause 9.2 -
Contractors: Given the restricted nature of this clause and
the Union's stated right to pursue claims the
Court recommends that it be accepted.
Clause 15.2 -
Handover The Court is of the view that continuity at
handover is essential. Provisions for dealing
with the "handover" are contained in the
existing agreement and the Court accordingly
considers that the Union may opt to retain that
clause or opt for the new proposals contained
in Clause 15.2.
Clause 28.5 -
Procedures The Court recommends the addition of a sentence
to meet the Union's claim that when matters of
general factory wide application are the
subject of a claim the full Committee as at
present constituted form the negotiating team.
The Court understands that such occasions would
be limited. In all other situations the
negotiating group will be that set out in the
agreement.
Compensation
Package
Grade 1 - #200 lead-in payment from date of acceptance of
agreement plus #100, 6 months after the
training programme commences.
Grades 1 - 5 3% (Clause 3, P.E.S.P.) to apply to basic rates
from date of acceptance of the agreement. A
further 3% to be applied to basic rates 12
months after the application of the 3%
(P.E.S.P.).
Grade 2 - Company's offer be accepted. The individual at
present temporarily filling a Grade 2 post be
treated in a similar manner.
The Court urges acceptance of the above proposals to the parties
as an equitable basis for resolving this critical dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
27th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.