Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93557 Case Number: LCR14310 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION (TEEU |
Dispute concerning:- (1) Cost improvement agreement (2) Terms and conditions of employment/procedures agreement.
Recommendation:
A basic rate of pay of #233.90 plus a bonus of
#81.69
(Both options are equivalent to the Company's
original proposal of #315.59).
3. Agreement could not be reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on the 30th June,
1993 and the 7th September, 1993. Agreement could not
be reached and the matter was referred by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the 1st
October, 1993. The Court investigated the matter on the
25th November, 1993 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has changed its position on the intent of
Clauses 2.5, 4.6 and 4.7 of the Cost Improvement Measures from
aspirational, to preferred option i.e. to replace maintenance
employment with maintenance by contract.
2. The deletion of these clauses is a prereguisite to an
overall agreement being considered.
3. The Union made every attempt to accommodate the company
and accepted the company proposals as contained in the
Comprehensive Agreement 1990.
4. The Union will accept the company's original proposal
for a pay cut but with the balance weighed towards the basic
rate i.e. basic pay of #265.59 plus bonus of #50 (Total
#315.59).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's financial and trading circumstances
necessitated agreement with all employees on significant cost
improvement proposals.
2. The Company has reached agreement with 1500 (98%) of its
employees.
3. The Company has agreed a 15% reduction in combined basic
and bonus pay with the Union of Construction, Allied Trades
and Technicians (U.C.A.T.T.) in respect of its maintenance
craftsmen members.
4. The Company has given an assurance in writing to
T.E.E.U. stating that under the implementation of Clause 2.5
of the Cost Improvement Measures concerning contracting-out,
compulsory redundancy will not be an option.
5. With the exception of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Cost
Improvement proposals presented to the two maintenance craft
unions, the other general clauses are common to all employees
and have been agreed.
6. The Company's directly employed maintenance craftsmen in
T.E.E.U. and U.C.A.T.T. must continue to have common rates of
pay and terms and conditions of employment.
7. The Company has always had common terms and conditions
of employment and procedures for all employees.
8. The Company's proposals in respect of terms and
conditions and procedures reflect the norm in the industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Although almost a year has passed since the issue of LCR13911
and its acceptance by both the Company and the Union representing
the vast bulk of the workforce in Waterford Crystal, the Court
must consider this case in the context of the critical business
and financial circumstances that existed at that time. To do
otherwise would diminish the Company's cost improvement measures
and would be inequitable to all the workers who accepted the
sacrifices entailed in those measures. As in LCR13911 the Court
has examined the Company proposals and the arguments of the
parties "not just by comparison with earlier agreements and
practices, but as a fresh basis for workable arrangements that
will re-establish Waterford Crystal as a viable business within a
reasonable period".
In the above context the Court recommendations in relation to the
matters in dispute are as follows:-
1. Clause 2.5 (C.I.M. 12/3/93)
It is the Court's view that the wording of Clause 2.5 clearly
indicated the Company intent from day one. It was not an
"aspirational" statement as argued by the Union but a clear option
where it carried cost advantage for the Company over existing
arrangements. This understanding was a consideration for the
Court when it recommended in the course of LCR13911 that all
clauses and references to compulsory redundancy should be
withdrawn from the proposals. This recommendation safeguarded the
employment of workers affected by the introduction of contractors
but who wished to remain in the Company.
In the course of the hearing it emerged that the employment of
existing maintenance craftsmen who wish to remain in the Company
is similarly safeguarded on a red-circled basis and is not
endangered by the Company proposals for the use of contractors.
In fact their position is more stable than other groupings
affected by contractors in so far as they will continue to do
craft work whereas others had to change in some instances to work
of a different nature to that which they previously performed.
In the particular circumstances applying to craftsmen, the Court
recommends that this additional option be included under Clause
2.5 i.e. that craftsmen have a choice of remaining in the Company
on a red-circled basis albeit in the context of the general use of
contractors by the Company.
With this provision, the Court considers that the inclusion of
maintenance in Clause 2.5 is appropriate and does not find grounds
which would warrant alteration of the Clause 2.5. The Court
therefore recommends acceptance of the Clause by the Union.
2. Section 4 (C.I.M. 12/3/93)
Regarding Section 4, the Union stated that it had principled
objections to Clauses 4.6 and 4.7, was prepared to negotiate on
Clause 4.1., 4.2, 4.4, 4.5., and accepted Clause 4.3.
Clause 4.6 and 4.7
Clauses 4.6 and 4.7 provide for specific applications of the
principle of contracting out non-core activities as provided for
in Clause 2.5 and the Union's objections to the clauses are an
extension of its objections to Clause 2.5. However, the Court,
having regard to the fact that it found the inclusion of
maintenance appropriate in Clause 2.5, considers the provisions of
Clauses 4.6 and 4.7 as logical and reasonable applications of the
principle. Accordingly the Court recommends acceptance of the
clauses by the Union.
Clauses 4.1, 4.2, 4.4., 4.5.,
Because of the Unions principled problems with Clauses 2.5., 4.6,
and 4.7, the other clauses of Section 4 relating to changes in
work practices have not been the subject of detailed negotiation
between the parties. Having examined these clauses, the Court
does not consider them to be more arduous on the workers concerned
than the changes accepted by various other groupings under the
cost improvement measures. Bearing in mind that the cost
improvement measures have applied to the other groups for almost a
year the Court recommends that the Union accept the implementation
of Clauses 4.1, 4.2, 4.4., 4.5 without further delay. Should the
Union have concerns regarding the operation of the clauses these
concerns can be subsequently dealt with through the appropriate
procedures.
3. Section 5 (C.I.M. - 12/3/93)
BASIC PAY AND INCENTIVE BONUS SCHEME
The Court has considered the arguments put forward by the parties,
has examined the impact of the overall package on the Maintenance
Craftsmen and has compared the Company's final pay proposals with
those applied to other groups. As a result of this examination
the Court recommends the following as an equitable weekly pay
package:-
BASIC #233.90
BONUS # 60.00
---------
TOTAL #293.90
4. COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT (1990)
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT (1992)
The Court noted the Unions confirmation of the full acceptance of
these agreements.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93557 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14310
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED
and
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION (TEEU)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:-
(1) Cost improvement agreement
(2) Terms and conditions of employment/procedures agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Waterford Crystal produces premium brand hand-crafted
crystal in its plants at Kilbarry, Butlerstown and Dungarvan
and currently employs 1550 people. The Company presented its
proposal for the two agreements above to all workers and
Unions in its three plants. Agreements was reached with all
Unions except the T.E.E.U. who represent 34 fitters and
electricians.
2. The Union sought the following:-
(1) The deletion of the category "Maintenance" from
Clause 2.5 of the Cost Improvement Measures
(C.I.M.) (Amended) (12/3/93).
(2) The deletion of Clauses 4.6 and 4.7 and
negotiation on Clauses 4.1, 4.2, 4.4 and 4.5 of
the Cost Improvement Measures (C.I.M) (Amended)
(12/3/93).
(3) A basic rate of pay of #265.59 plus a bonus of #50
or
A basic rate of pay of #233.90 plus a bonus of
#81.69
(Both options are equivalent to the Company's
original proposal of #315.59).
3. Agreement could not be reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on the 30th June,
1993 and the 7th September, 1993. Agreement could not
be reached and the matter was referred by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the 1st
October, 1993. The Court investigated the matter on the
25th November, 1993 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has changed its position on the intent of
Clauses 2.5, 4.6 and 4.7 of the Cost Improvement Measures from
aspirational, to preferred option i.e. to replace maintenance
employment with maintenance by contract.
2. The deletion of these clauses is a prereguisite to an
overall agreement being considered.
3. The Union made every attempt to accommodate the company
and accepted the company proposals as contained in the
Comprehensive Agreement 1990.
4. The Union will accept the company's original proposal
for a pay cut but with the balance weighed towards the basic
rate i.e. basic pay of #265.59 plus bonus of #50 (Total
#315.59).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's financial and trading circumstances
necessitated agreement with all employees on significant cost
improvement proposals.
2. The Company has reached agreement with 1500 (98%) of its
employees.
3. The Company has agreed a 15% reduction in combined basic
and bonus pay with the Union of Construction, Allied Trades
and Technicians (U.C.A.T.T.) in respect of its maintenance
craftsmen members.
4. The Company has given an assurance in writing to
T.E.E.U. stating that under the implementation of Clause 2.5
of the Cost Improvement Measures concerning contracting-out,
compulsory redundancy will not be an option.
5. With the exception of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Cost
Improvement proposals presented to the two maintenance craft
unions, the other general clauses are common to all employees
and have been agreed.
6. The Company's directly employed maintenance craftsmen in
T.E.E.U. and U.C.A.T.T. must continue to have common rates of
pay and terms and conditions of employment.
7. The Company has always had common terms and conditions
of employment and procedures for all employees.
8. The Company's proposals in respect of terms and
conditions and procedures reflect the norm in the industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Although almost a year has passed since the issue of LCR13911
and its acceptance by both the Company and the Union representing
the vast bulk of the workforce in Waterford Crystal, the Court
must consider this case in the context of the critical business
and financial circumstances that existed at that time. To do
otherwise would diminish the Company's cost improvement measures
and would be inequitable to all the workers who accepted the
sacrifices entailed in those measures. As in LCR13911 the Court
has examined the Company proposals and the arguments of the
parties "not just by comparison with earlier agreements and
practices, but as a fresh basis for workable arrangements that
will re-establish Waterford Crystal as a viable business within a
reasonable period".
In the above context the Court recommendations in relation to the
matters in dispute are as follows:-
1. Clause 2.5 (C.I.M. 12/3/93)
It is the Court's view that the wording of Clause 2.5 clearly
indicated the Company intent from day one. It was not an
"aspirational" statement as argued by the Union but a clear option
where it carried cost advantage for the Company over existing
arrangements. This understanding was a consideration for the
Court when it recommended in the course of LCR13911 that all
clauses and references to compulsory redundancy should be
withdrawn from the proposals. This recommendation safeguarded the
employment of workers affected by the introduction of contractors
but who wished to remain in the Company.
In the course of the hearing it emerged that the employment of
existing maintenance craftsmen who wish to remain in the Company
is similarly safeguarded on a red-circled basis and is not
endangered by the Company proposals for the use of contractors.
In fact their position is more stable than other groupings
affected by contractors in so far as they will continue to do
craft work whereas others had to change in some instances to work
of a different nature to that which they previously performed.
In the particular circumstances applying to craftsmen, the Court
recommends that this additional option be included under Clause
2.5 i.e. that craftsmen have a choice of remaining in the Company
on a red-circled basis albeit in the context of the general use of
contractors by the Company.
With this provision, the Court considers that the inclusion of
maintenance in Clause 2.5 is appropriate and does not find grounds
which would warrant alteration of the Clause 2.5. The Court
therefore recommends acceptance of the Clause by the Union.
2. Section 4 (C.I.M. 12/3/93)
Regarding Section 4, the Union stated that it had principled
objections to Clauses 4.6 and 4.7, was prepared to negotiate on
Clause 4.1., 4.2, 4.4, 4.5., and accepted Clause 4.3.
Clause 4.6 and 4.7
Clauses 4.6 and 4.7 provide for specific applications of the
principle of contracting out non-core activities as provided for
in Clause 2.5 and the Union's objections to the clauses are an
extension of its objections to Clause 2.5. However, the Court,
having regard to the fact that it found the inclusion of
maintenance appropriate in Clause 2.5, considers the provisions of
Clauses 4.6 and 4.7 as logical and reasonable applications of the
principle. Accordingly the Court recommends acceptance of the
clauses by the Union.
Clauses 4.1, 4.2, 4.4., 4.5.,
Because of the Unions principled problems with Clauses 2.5., 4.6,
and 4.7, the other clauses of Section 4 relating to changes in
work practices have not been the subject of detailed negotiation
between the parties. Having examined these clauses, the Court
does not consider them to be more arduous on the workers concerned
than the changes accepted by various other groupings under the
cost improvement measures. Bearing in mind that the cost
improvement measures have applied to the other groups for almost a
year the Court recommends that the Union accept the implementation
of Clauses 4.1, 4.2, 4.4., 4.5 without further delay. Should the
Union have concerns regarding the operation of the clauses these
concerns can be subsequently dealt with through the appropriate
procedures.
3. Section 5 (C.I.M. - 12/3/93)
BASIC PAY AND INCENTIVE BONUS SCHEME
The Court has considered the arguments put forward by the parties,
has examined the impact of the overall package on the Maintenance
Craftsmen and has compared the Company's final pay proposals with
those applied to other groups. As a result of this examination
the Court recommends the following as an equitable weekly pay
package:-
BASIC #233.90
BONUS # 60.00
---------
TOTAL #293.90
4. COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT (1990)
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT (1992)
The Court noted the Unions confirmation of the full acceptance of
these agreements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
21st December, 1993 ---------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquireis concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.