Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9328 Case Number: LCR13938 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ORMONDE BRICK LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning proposed redundancies and rationalisation plans.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Having regard to the current exchange rate situation and the
consequent competitive disadvantage at which the Company must
trade, and taking account of additional financial information
supplied by the Company, the Court in the circumstances, considers
the Unions claims to be inopportune, and recommends that the
workers co-operate with the introduction of the proposed changes,
including the changes in the Packing Department as a matter of
urgency.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9328 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13938
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ORMONDE BRICK LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning proposed redundancies and rationalisation
plans.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is part of the Cement Roadstone Group, is
situated at Castlecomer, Co. Kilkenny. It manufactures fired-clay
bricks principally for the home market, with some exports to the
North of Ireland. The Company employs 56 workers.
3. The Company proposed seven redundancies and other changes in
work practices (details supplied to the Court) because of the
continuing recession in the Construction Industry, intense market
competition and the current sterling situation. The Union
rejected the proposals. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on
17th November, 1992. The Industrial Relations Officer proposed
that the Company should (1) provide the Union with a written
statement of the post redundancy production system, (2) arrange
for shop stewards to visit another factory and (3) the Union
should seek to obtain such information as may be available to it
on brick production systems elsewhere and the parties should then
enter into negotiations on the rationalisation measures proposed
by the Company.
4. The Company provided the Union with a statement for post
redundancy production and detailed information on the brick
industry. A visit to two Brickworks Plants in England was held on
8th December, 1992, following which, the Union presented the
following proposals to Management at a local meeting:-
"1. That a joint monitoring committee made up of Union and
Management representatives be established to include a senior
staff member responsible for sales. This joint monitoring
committee to assess the performance of the Company at all
levels.
2. That Company performance bonus be instituted to reward
workers at all levels for improved performance of the Company
over and above an agreed figure.
3. That the present standing bonus be incorporated into
basic rate of pay. The standing bonus at the moment attracts
increases in pay in the same way as basic.
4. Provide additional payment for effort arising out of
reduction in the workforce. Agreement has already been
reached to negotiate a bonus scheme for the packing area.
5. Increase the annual leave entitlement of workers by one
day.
6. Institute a paternity leave scheme for workers in line
with good practice elsewhere in Ireland and in Europe.
7. Improve the sick pay scheme by paying workers their
normal weekly earnings while out sick with agreement to
return to the Company the Social Welfare cheque. This system
is already in place where the worker is absent due to being
involved in an accident.
8. Institute a Company paid Health Insurance scheme by way
of family membership of the V.H.I.
9. Extend the worker participation State Enterprises Act to
Ormonde Brick Company".
The Union also expressed concern over the number of proposed
redundancies in the Packing Area as it believed that the
redundancies would result in increased productivity from the
remaining workforce, with a possibility that the Company would use
a foreman to carry out general operative duties. This was totally
unacceptable to the Union who also requested that the redundancies
be voluntary (to-date five workers have volunteered for
redundancy) and that they did not take place until the new work
practices have been put in place and evaluated.
5. The Company agreed to the setting up a monitoring committee to
review the operation of the Packing Area incentive scheme, to
negotiate the rescheduling of the maintenance hours and to seek
the redundancies on a voluntary basis initially. If enough
workers did not volunteer, redundancies would be implemented on a
last-in first-out basis. The Company rejected the other elements
of the Union's proposals.
6. As the issues were not resolved at local level the dispute was
referred back to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 6th January, 1993. As no agreement was
reached the Commission, with the consent of the parties, referred
the dispute to the Labour Court on 8th January, 1993 for
investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 22nd January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The proposed redundancy is the third redundancy plan for
implemention by the Company in recent times. As a result,
there is a lack of confidence in the Company among the
workforce. The Union's proposals, which are not very costly,
are designed to assure both the workforce and the Company of
confidence in each other.
2. The Company's proposals would require increased production
from a smaller group of workers and are a productivity
measure. They are not designed to achieve a reduction in
volume.
3. The workers believe that with less manpower in the Packing
Area the Company will use foremen to carry out general
operative tasks. This is unacceptable to the Union.
4. Redundancies should not be implemented until the new work
practices have been put in place and a suitable period allowed
to evaluate the changes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. There have been dramatic changes in the nature of the
brick industry due to the virtual collapse of the U.K.
building industry and the significant fall in the Irish
construction industry.
2. U.K. and Northern Ireland producers are now competing in
the home market. These producers production costs are less
than the Company's costs (details supplied to the Court).
3. There is over-production in the brickworks industry
(details supplied to the Court).
4. The Company's proposals are designed to bring production
costs into line with competitors and are essential for the
Company's survival.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Having regard to the current exchange rate situation and the
consequent competitive disadvantage at which the Company must
trade, and taking account of additional financial information
supplied by the Company, the Court in the circumstances, considers
the Unions claims to be inopportune, and recommends that the
workers co-operate with the introduction of the proposed changes,
including the changes in the Packing Department as a matter of
urgency.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
2nd February, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.