Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92546 Case Number: LCR13819 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the Society's efforts to introduce a number of cost-cutting measures.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions made, and particularly
having regard to the financial difficulties with which the Society
is presently dealing the Court nevertheless, taking account of the
reduction in staff and the co-operation given in other cost
cutting measures, is of the opinion and recommends that the
Society should not at this stage insist on the proposed changes in
overtime arrangements. This would not preclude the Society
renewing the claim in the event of a further deterioration in the
Society's financial situation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92546 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13819
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Society's efforts to introduce a number
of cost-cutting measures.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1991 the Society, because of persistent losses, introduced
rationalisation measures, including a voluntary redundancy scheme,
aimed at cutting costs right across the board. The Society also
pleaded inability to pay increments and the first round increases
under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
The process involved numerous meetings at local level culminating
in an investigation and recommendation by the Labour Court.
3. In L.C.R. 13428 issued on 4th October, 1991 the Court
recommended that the Society pay the first phase of P.E.S.P. and
in "return the Society is entitled to full co-operation in
introducing the other measures it has proposed to reduce ongoing
costs and achieve viability".
4. At a meeting held on 7th January, 1992 the Society put forward
a number of cost-cutting proposals under the following headings:-
(a) Reduction in numbers employed.
(b) Rationalisation of functions.
(c) Contract/temporary staff.
(d) Complete flexibility and transferability of staff (within
the administration function).
(e) 10% reduction in overtime costs.
The Union responded that agreement was possible under all the
various headings except at (e) which they considered to be
excessive. Under this heading the Company proposed to achieve a
10% reduction in overtime costs by:-
(i) The introduction of a 32.50 hour week for all staff.
(Some of the workers work a 31.50 hour week.
(ii) Full time rates for all staff to be calculated on basis
of 1/32.5.
(iii) Overtime premium rates to be paid after 35 hours work
(i.e. first 2.50 hours overtime to be paid at flat rate).
The Union was prepared to consider a once-off reduction of 10% in
overtime costs.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
13th February, 1992. Conciliation conferences were held on 16th
April and 14th May, 1992. As no agreement was reached the
Commission, with the consent of the parties, referred the dispute
to the Labour Court on 8th September, 1992 for investigation and
recommendation under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Court hearing took place on 12th October, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Society is committed to containing costs in the
long-term in a sustained effort to build stability for the
future.
2. The Society's business is volatile in that it is largely
dependent on disposable income. In addition, there is now
competition from other venues to stage the same events.
3. The Society's proposals are aimed at containing costs and
placing it on a more commercially sound basis. They are in
line with the spirit of L.C.R. 13428.
4. The core hours of administrative staff are low which
affects the relative costs when the Society tenders for
business vis a vis its competitors.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Management have already achieved considerable savings
under previous rationalisation (details supplied to the
Court).
2. The workers are not prepared to pay for their own
cost-of-living increases by a worsening of their working
conditions.
3. P.E.S.P. provides for no cost-increasing claims.
Conversely there should be no diminution of workers'
conditions. To implement this would undermine the whole
thinking behind P.E.S.P.
4. The pay of the workers concerned is low and in view of the
fact that the Society has achieved almost everything it sought
there should be no changes in the working week or in the
method of calculating overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions made, and particularly
having regard to the financial difficulties with which the Society
is presently dealing the Court nevertheless, taking account of the
reduction in staff and the co-operation given in other cost
cutting measures, is of the opinion and recommends that the
Society should not at this stage insist on the proposed changes in
overtime arrangements. This would not preclude the Society
renewing the claim in the event of a further deterioration in the
Society's financial situation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
29th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.