Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92468 Case Number: LCR13766 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute regarding the implementation of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.)
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court notes the long standing arrangement of the highly
unusual system of breaks, and also the fact that, until now, the
abolition of these breaks has not been actively sought by
management, and is of the opinion that in these circumstances
their total elimination might be considered excessive. The Court
therefore recommends that the two morning breaks be ended and that
the Company in return concede the 3% increase under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92468 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13766
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding the implementation of Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.)
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was founded in 1893 and has been engaged in
the manufacture of fibre board boxes since 1956 and corrugated
cases since 1973. There are 100 workers employed. The
corrugator at the Company produces 6,000 tonnes per annum and
the Company has less than 10% of the domestic market.
2. The Company and Union met on 12th March, 1992 to discuss
Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. which was due from 1st April. It was
agreed that 3% would be paid from the due date and further
discussions would take place to explore whether agreement
could be secured for the implementation of the 3% "cap" under
the local bargaining clause.
3. A further meeting took place on 30th March, 1992 at which
the Company put forward the following proposals for the
implementation of the 3% increase. The Company proposed that
the increase would be phased with 1.5% payable from 1st April,
1992 and 1.5% payable from 1st May 1993, provided the
following was accepted:-
(a) Agreement to eliminate 4 x 8 minutes smoke breaks.
(b) Agreement to eliminate an arrangement which allows
people to start a half hour later on church holidays.
(c) Agreement to formalise an arrangement whereby
tea-breaks are staggered.
(d) Agreement to observe Company regulations on use of
telephone during working hours.
(e) Adherence to agreement on co-operation with requests
from the Company for overtime.
4. The workers rejected the proposal by ballot and on 3rd
April the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 14th May,
1992. The Industrial Relations Officer put a proposal that
the Company would agree to apply an increase of 3% under
Clause 3 of Appendix A to the P.E.S.P. with effect from 1st
April, 1992 and that the Union in return agree to the
elimination of smoke breaks.
5. The Industrial Relations Officer's proposal was rejected
by the workers on 15th May, 1992. As no further progress was
possible, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 6th
August, 1992. A Labour Court investigation took place in
Limerick on 2nd September, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's last price increase was in 1989. It
operates in an increasingly competitive environment (details
supplied) and to survive increased efficiency, productivity
and capital investment are required. The Company can only
make investment from profits and present projections are that
the Company will go below break-even within 2 years. Clause 3
of the P.E.S.P. provides for the exceptional payment of up to
3% in the context of the implications for competitiveness, the
need for change and the contributions made by workers to such
change.
2. Smoke Breaks
These breaks were introduced at a time when 75% of the
workforce smoked. Today less than 25% smoke and the
competitive pressures on the Company are severe. Working
conditions have improved and the work is not as
labour-intensive as it was. The Company's competitors do not
have the smoke breaks and their presence in the Company puts
it at a competitive disadvantage. The breaks have resulted in
disruption to production and the failure to supply customers
on time is a weekly occurrence. The frequency of breaks are
impossible to supervise and a source of indiscipline. The
breaks are jeopardising the future of the Company and its
incentive to seek additional market share.
3. (i) Church Holidays
The loss of a half hour's production 6 times a year for
church holidays is a similar but not as serious
inefficiency. It cannot be justified in the present time
when masses are readily available.
(ii) Staggering of Breaks in an Emergency
This applies in the Company by custom and practice on a
voluntary basis. The Company would prefer to formalise
the arrangement to ensure a fair distribution of work.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's proposals have twice been rejected by the
workers and they hold very strong views on the main issues.
The cost of concession is too high for the workers who have
given much co-operation and flexibility in the past. They
intend to continue these practices for the future. Their
level of co-operation and flexibility should be sufficient for
the Company to concede the 3% increase.
2. Smoke Breaks
The Union sees these breaks as "relief breaks" from the work
situation and as not being just for smokers. The Union is not
aware of any production-related problem or unfilled orders as
a result of the breaks. When visitors are in the plant such
breaks are often not taken. The Company operates a shift
system over 24 hours Monday to Friday. Some workers do
12-hour shifts with overtime and Saturday work a regular
feature. The Union believes that any reduction in breaks
would not give the workers adequate relief.
3. (i) Church Holidays
The workers find this proposal unacceptable as it would
affect overtime worked and consequently production.
(ii) Staggering of breaks in an emergency
This is already done by co-operation and consultation.
(iii) Co-operation with requests from the Company for
overtime
The Union feels that this issue can be dealt with at local
level as can any problems with phone calls.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court notes the long standing arrangement of the highly
unusual system of breaks, and also the fact that, until now, the
abolition of these breaks has not been actively sought by
management, and is of the opinion that in these circumstances
their total elimination might be considered excessive. The Court
therefore recommends that the two morning breaks be ended and that
the Company in return concede the 3% increase under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
24th September, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.