Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93519 Case Number: LCR14319 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SPS UNBRAKO LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
has examined the Company's accounts for the past three years. In
view of the substantial losses incurred in the three years
reviewed, the Court considers the application of Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. can only be justified on a self-financing basis.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union accepts the
Company proposals as presented to the Court in return for the
application of 3% under clause 3 of P.E.S.P on the phased basis
proposed by the Company. The only exception to the proposals
should be the clause referring to the classification of set-up men
as setter/operators. The Court recommends that this requirement
should be negotiated under the terms of the Comprehensive
Agreement. The Court notes the Union's undertaking that the
Company's requirement can be met in this way.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93519 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14319
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SPS UNBRAKO LIMITED
(SHANNON FASTENERS)
and
TECHNICAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. Shannon Fasteners is a division of SPS International Limited
which commenced operation in Ireland in 1960. The Company employs
approximately 200 people in the manufacture and distribution of
socket screw products. It distributes on a world-wide basis with
the majority of its sales to European countries.
3. In early 1992, discussions took place in relation to Clause 3
of P.E.S.P. at which the Company requested a postponement of the
discussions, due to its difficult trading position.
4. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
In the period July, 1992 to November, 1992, a number of
conciliation conferences took place. In November, 1992,
difficulties arose in the Company's trading position as a result
of the exchange rate crises and the issue was adjourned to a
future date. A conciliation conference was held in June, 1993 at
which the Company put forward the following proposals:-
(a) Elimination of wash-up time.
(b) Elimination of bank time/payment by credit transfer or
cheque.
(c) Existing set-up men to be classified as
setter/operators.
(d) Key production machinery continuous working.
(e) Elimination of early finish at Christmas and Summer
holidays.
(f) Both parties commit themselves to continue to honour the
spirit and letter of the comprehensive procedural
agreement.
In return the Company were prepared to implement the 3% on a
phased basis.
The following is the Union's position:-
(a) All those involved or entitled to shower to have 10
minutes wash-up time. All others 5 minutes;
(b) agreed to credit transfer or payment by cheque;
(c) rejected;
(d) agreed to key production machinery working during
breaks;
(e) elimination of early finish in summer only;
(f) commitment to the comprehensive agreement;
The Union inicated at the hearing that the matter in relation to
(c) above could be resolved through direct negotiation.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court on 13th September,
1993. The Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on 18th
November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union's response to the Company's proposals would
result in substantial savings to the Company and
justifies the payment of the 3% under the terms of
P.E.S.P.
2. Due to the dirty nature of the work, the elimination of
the wash-up time is unacceptable to the workers
concerned.
3. During the course of the discussions the Union has taken
full account of the need for competitiveness.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has come through very difficult times over
the past four years when its very survival was
threatened. The audited accounts show significant
losses for the 3 years ending December, 1992 (details
supplied)
2. It cannot absorb additional costs at this time. It is
essential that employees accept the changes proposed in
order to justify the 3% increase in basic wages.
3. The Company has adhered to the basic terms of the
P.E.S.P. despite serious losses. Overall it has
incurred increases amounting to 13.75% in labour costs
over the 3 years of the P.E.S.P. with the payment of an
additional 3% for the Comprehensive Agreement.
4. The parent Company is experiencing difficult operating
and financial conditions. The perilous state of the
parent Company continues to generate tremendous
uncertainly.
5. It is clear that no additional cost increases can be
incurred without adversely affecting (the Company's
position) in the market and the Company's future.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
has examined the Company's accounts for the past three years. In
view of the substantial losses incurred in the three years
reviewed, the Court considers the application of Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. can only be justified on a self-financing basis.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union accepts the
Company proposals as presented to the Court in return for the
application of 3% under clause 3 of P.E.S.P on the phased basis
proposed by the Company. The only exception to the proposals
should be the clause referring to the classification of set-up men
as setter/operators. The Court recommends that this requirement
should be negotiated under the terms of the Comprehensive
Agreement. The Court notes the Union's undertaking that the
Company's requirement can be met in this way.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
22nd December, 1993 ---------------
F.B./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.