Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92289 Case Number: LCR13755 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WESSEL CABLE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Productivity Increase.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that:-
1. the changes proposed by the Company be implemented as
required,
2. the 3% under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. be paid with
effect from 1st March, 1992,
3. at the termination of the agreement on 31st May, 1994
the parties evaluate and agree the productivity earnings
achieved,
4. the parties agree a basis for the payment of
productivity increases, the discussions to take account
of the 3% paid in accordance with 2 above.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92289 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13755
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1990
PARTIES: WESSEL CABLE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Productivity Increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is based in Longford, is engaged in the
manufacture of telephone and rubber cables. In 1989 the Labour
Court issued Recommendation No. L.C.R. 12254. Under the terms of
the Recommendation, the workers concerned co-operate with any work
changes/productivity required by the Company, with the question of
compensation to be decided when discussions on the next wage round
begin. In April, 1991, agreement was reached in relation to the
payment of the 1st phase of P.E.S.P. As part of the agreement it
was decided to enter into discussions in late-1991 on the subject
of work changes/productivity. These commenced in November, 1991.
The Company outlined the changes it required and in return offered
the 3% available under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. The workers rejected
the offer. The Union claims that the workers cannot be expected
to agree to all changes required by the Company, and be
constrained to accept a maximum of 3% regardless of the actual
value of those changes. As no agreement could be reached on the
issue at local level the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 29th
January, 1992. The parties agreed at conciliation to enter into
further local level discussions on the issue. Discussions took
place after which the following proposals were put to the workers:
Basic increase 3% from 1st January, 1992
3.75% " 1st January, 1993
Productivity Increase 3% " 1st March, 1992
1.25% " 1st March, 1993
1% " 1st March, 1994.
The workers rejected the proposals. A further conciliation
conference was held but as no agreement could be reached the
matter was referred to the Labour Court on 19th May, 1992. The
Court hearing took place on 16th July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposal to include payment for future
productivity in its offer of 3% is in breach of established
practice in the Company.
2. There is no reason to depart from the established practice
of introducing changes in work practices, increasing
productivity, and discussing compensation for such changes at
the end of the current wage round. It would be detrimental to
good industrial relations to change the established practice.
3. It makes more sense to introduce changes and to assess the
affects and value of such changes to the Company, rather than
attempt to cost the value of such changes in advance.
4. Before discussing additional changes in work practices,
the workers should be compensated for productivity previously
conceded. The application of clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. is the
ideal way to compensate for changes already implemented.
5. The Company has increased its profits by over 150% since
1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has made a generous offer. It is above the
norm and it should be accepted.
2. The Union's insistence on productivity increases in excess
of the P.E.S.P. is not consistent with the terms of the
P.E.S.P. and the Company's adherence to the P.E.S.P.
3. Productivity gained in 1990/1991 was brought about by the
introduction of new machinery, necessary to the survival of
the Company and the maintenance of jobs in Longford.
4. Concession of this claim would be detrimental to the
Company. It would also call into question the terms of the
P.E.S.P.
5. The Union's position as outlined in its letter to the
Company on 26th February, 1992, (details supplied to the
Court) is not feasible. The Company could not backdate pay
for 2 years to account for retrospective productivity.
6. Labour Court Recommendation No. L.C.R. 12254 recommends
that the Company discuss proposed changes prior to their
implementation. The Company has adhered to this in the
current negotiations.
7. The future of the rubber cable business is not
particularly good and either the Company now meets competitive
levels of productivity or sees a steady erosion of its present
sales.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that:-
1. the changes proposed by the Company be implemented as
required,
2. the 3% under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. be paid with
effect from 1st March, 1992,
3. at the termination of the agreement on 31st May, 1994
the parties evaluate and agree the productivity earnings
achieved,
4. the parties agree a basis for the payment of
productivity increases, the discussions to take account
of the 3% paid in accordance with 2 above.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
3rd September, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.