Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93190 Case Number: LCR14042 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DRAMMOCK IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties. The Court is of the view that the proposals
which emanated from conciliation and contained in letter of 15th
January, 1993 as corrected form a basis for settlement of this
dispute.
The Court accordingly recommends that these proposals be accepted
subject to
(a) Interpretation of the "merit scheme" as outlined to the Court
be substituted for paragraph 3 of that letter.
(b) The Company verify with the appropriate authorities the safety
factor raised by the Union should the canteen be locked at
certain times.
(c) The Company agree to install facilities for drinking water at
outlets outside the canteen.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93190 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14042
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DRAMMOCK IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1983 and employs 46 workers
in the manufacture of disposable nappies and sanitary towels.
The second phase of the P.E.S.P. was paid on 1st January,
1992. In February, 1992 the Union made a claim for payment of
the 3% under Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the P.E.S.P.
2. In May, 1992 the Company put forward proposals to the
Union for the concession of the 3% increase. The proposals
involved a reduction in the number of breaks and changes in
the sick-pay and merit schemes (details supplied). The
proposals were rejected by the workers and following further
discussions, the claim was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission.
3. Conciliation conferences were held on 2nd and 24th
November, 1992. On 15th January, 1993, the Industrial
Relations Officer put forward proposals (as follows) which
were recommended for acceptance by both parties.
"1. Clause (1) Breaks
(a) The canteen and locker rooms will be open during tea
breaks and lunch breaks only, outside of these times
the canteen, stickering room and locker rooms will be
locked.
(b) A buzzer or siren system will signify the beginning
and end of all tea breaks with a bell sounding in the
canteen 2 minutes before the end of each break.
(c) Personal Needs Breaks: A rota system will operate
twice per shift allowing each person a maximum 5
minutes per break (currently 3 x 5 minute breaks).
The first rota will begin halfway between
commencement of shift and 1st tea break and 2nd rota
break will be halfway between tea break and lunch
break, there will be no rota break after last
official break. Requests for emergency toilet breaks
will be accommodated, but Supervisors will be
instructed to monitor the situation and if abuses are
suspected employees will be interviewed and may have
to undergo a medical examination. If abuses are
confirmed, employees will be dealt with under the
disciplinary procedures.
2. Sick Pay Scheme
The Company proposal on the revision of the Sick Pay
Scheme has been dropped in the context of these
negotiations.
3. Clause (3) - Staff not completing their shift:
(a) Will lose 20% of merit for non full attendance
(b) will get a percentage of the merit for hours
worked in the unfinished shift.
(c) Person covering the remainder of the shift will
receive 20% irrespective of the hours worked.
4. The payment being made under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P., is
in respect of the successful and ongoing introduction
of ISO 9,002 in addition to the full flexibility and
co-operation of employees to achieve its successful
and ongoing implementation.
5. A commitment is hereby given to ongoing co-operation
and change, including the introduction of new process
machinery.
Payment will be made on the following basis:-
2% payable on January, 1993 and a further 1% payable
6 months later subject to the successful
implementation and achievement of all the above
points".
4. The proposals were rejected by the workers. The claim was
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990, on 23rd March, 1993. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 8th April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers believe that the Company is seeking excessive
concessions in exchange for the 3% increase under the terms of
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The workers have co-operated with
significant change in the recent past (details supplied) which
merits the concession of the 3% increase. In addition, there
is a strong case that the basic rate which is well below
industry levels justifies the increase claimed.
2. The proposals concerning the canteen closure and the
reduction of personal breaks bring no advantage to the Company
but are a heavy-handed approach to the treatment of the
workforce. The personal breaks can only be taken when the
worker is relieved and therefore production is not affected.
3. The breaks as presently rostered are required because of
work conditions (details supplied). The Union is prepared to
discuss any alleged abuse of the merit pay scheme. However,
the revision of the scheme as proposed by the Industrial
Relations Officer is unacceptable to the Union.
4. The workers have always been co-operative and flexible and
their ongoing commitment to change merits concession of the 3%
increase claimed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Negotiations under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. must take full
account of the implications for competitiveness, the need for
flexibility and change and the contribution made by employees
to such change. The Company is entitled to seek a trade-off
in return for the application of Clause 3. The trade-offs
being sought by the Company will not impose any undue hardship
on workers and cannot be construed as being excessive.
2. The Company is prepared to accept the proposals as put
forward by the Industrial Relations Officer. By so doing, the
Company departed in a significant way from the trade-offs
which it had sought at the outset. The Company cannot accept
that conditions in its factory are outside the norms for the
industry in terms of health and safety.
3. The currency crisis has placed considerable financial
pressure on the Company. The Company has had to examine its
cost base very closely to maintain its competitive position.
Concessions under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. cannot be allowed
to adversely affect or damage its competitive position. The
Company has showed its willingness to negotiate by dropping
its sick pay proposal. The merit pay proposal will cost the
Company in excess of the present scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties. The Court is of the view that the proposals
which emanated from conciliation and contained in letter of 15th
January, 1993 as corrected form a basis for settlement of this
dispute.
The Court accordingly recommends that these proposals be accepted
subject to
(a) Interpretation of the "merit scheme" as outlined to the Court
be substituted for paragraph 3 of that letter.
(b) The Company verify with the appropriate authorities the safety
factor raised by the Union should the canteen be locked at
certain times.
(c) The Company agree to install facilities for drinking water at
outlets outside the canteen.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
20th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.