Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92665 Case Number: LCR13913 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WOCO INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim under Clause 3 of Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the views of the parties
expressed in their oral and written submissions has come to the
conclusion that the impact of the Company proposals is not as
great as perceived by the employees.
Given the present situation in the Industry the Court recommends
the Company proposals be accepted and the 3% be implemented with
effect from 3rd October, 1992.
The Court takes the view that the 3% should be applied to all
workers covered by the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92665 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13913
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: WOCO INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim under Clause 3 of Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Carrick-on-Shannon and employ 135
workers. It is involved in the manufacture of injected moulded
rubber components for supply to the European automotive industry.
In the period February/April, 1992, discussions took place between
the parties on the application of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. During
the course of the discussions the Company indicated that, due to
its poor financial position, it could only consider the
application of the 3% increase available payable under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P., if the workers accepted proposals put forward by the
Company. The Company's position was not accepted by the Union and
the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference held on 3rd October, 1992, was adjourned
to enable the parties to have further local discussions. At a
second conciliation conference held on 14th October, 1992, the
Company indicated that it was prepared to consider the
implementation of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. in return for the Union's
acceptance of the following proposals:
"1.) The 3 Minutes grace period for lates to be eliminated.
2.) Introduction of break relief scheme for the production
area.
A. All machines will be operated throughout periods of
breaks by Operators relieving each other as organised by
Supervision, e.g. for the period of breaks one operator
attends two machines.
B. This operation must not cause loss of production except
where otherwise stated.
The Quality of products will be maintained during this
operation.
C. The scheme will operate for a minimum period of two weeks
before payments under Clause 3 are implemented. During
this period both sides can withdraw from the scheme.
3.) For indirect productive employees a reduced rate of
increase will apply.
Furthermore the Union and its Members commit themselves to
full co-operation under the following Headings:
4.) Total Quality Management including Operator-Self-Control.
5.) Future introduction of Operator Teams operating groups of
machines with direct responsibility for production output
and Quality of products. Eventually this will be
operated as a Bonus-Scheme".
The Union rejected the proposals and the matter was referred to
the Labour Court on 23rd October, 1992. The Court hearing took
place on 1st December, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's benefits from its productivity proposals
related to the benefit to the workers are excessive. Previous
work study checks have shown that the workers are performing
at a high level of productivity. The Company's plan to
implement the ISO 9000 would place additional burdens and
responsibilities on the workers.
2. The workers do not expect concession of the claim for no
return. Proposals put forward by the Union which would be
beneficial to both parties were rejected by the Company. The
Union are prepared to discuss productivity schemes properly
assessed and offering protection of jobs.
3. The implementation of Clause 3 is justified for the
ongoing flexibility given by the workers and for productivity
already given. The workers are operating a measured
performance for a basic rate of pay.
4. The Company's attempt to secure substantial productivity
savings in return for the implementation of Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. is in breach of the agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the current economic climate the Company is fighting
for its survival. In the circumstances the proposals made by
the Company are reasonable.
2. The European automotive industry is in recession. In
recent months many car manufacturers have announced lay-offs
and cutbacks in production, due to the downturn in demand.
3. In recent months, the Company has tried to keep all of its
machines in production by producing components for supply well
into 1993. This has led to a build up of stock and the
Company is now anticipating a drop in production orders of 10%
for the first quarter of 1993.
4. The component supply industry is extremely price
sensitive. During the past year, the Company has been forced
to concede a 2% reduction in prices to two major customers.
The Company has also endured, in recent years, substantial
increases in the cost of workers liability insurance cover.
5. The financial information made available to the Court for
the current year demonstrates the seriousness of the operating
performance of the Company.
6. The Company's proposals dated 10th September, 1992,
represent a considerable movement from its original position.
Given its commercial difficulties, the Company has a
compelling case for deferring the claim.
7. Under the local bargaining clause negotiations must take
account of the implications for competitiveness. Concession
of the claim would represent a real threat to the competitive
position of the Company. Account must be taken of the need
for flexibility and the contribution made by the workers to
such change.
8. Any agreement reached must relate to improvements in unit
labour costs and be above and beyond present levels of
flexibility. In this regard items (1) and (2) of the
Company's proposals represent immediate tangible measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having fully considered the views of the parties
expressed in their oral and written submissions has come to the
conclusion that the impact of the Company proposals is not as
great as perceived by the employees.
Given the present situation in the Industry the Court recommends
the Company proposals be accepted and the 3% be implemented with
effect from 3rd October, 1992.
The Court takes the view that the 3% should be applied to all
workers covered by the claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
8th January, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.