Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93163 Case Number: LCR14118 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: HARTMAN IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A claim for the implementation of Clause 3 (Local Bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.)
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions recommends that the parties
engage in negotiations on the agenda put forward by the Company
with a view to the implementation of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. in
accordance with the provisions of the clause.
The parties to seek to reach agreement within two weeks. In the
event agreement is not reached the Court will review the
negotiations and issue a recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93163 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14118
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: HARTMAN IRELAND LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim for the implementation of Clause 3 (Local Bargaining)
of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.)
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is based in New Ross and is engaged in the
manufacture of tubular steel (traditional) and resin (plastic
or injection moulded) garden furniture.
2. The Union sought implementation of the 3% Local
Bargaining Clause as provided for under the P.E.S.P. from 1st
August, 1992. The Company put forward proposals on
productivity for agreement before conceding the claim. These
proposals covered:-
1. Jig cleaning
2. Clean work areas
3. Covering targets
The proposals were rejected in a ballot vote.
3. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the
2nd December, 1992. The Company put forward its original
proposals but added four other items:-
1. Jig Cleaning
2. Clean work areas
3. Covering targets
4. Link supplier
5. Break provision - injection moulding
6. Regrind - injection moulding
7. Co-operation
The proposals were again rejected and the matter was referred
by the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the
9th March, 1993. The Court investigated the issue on the 4th
May, 1993 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The productivity proposals submitted by the Company
would warrant an increase in excess of 3%.
2. Concession of these proposals would mean that the
equivalent of 6.5 jobs would be lost.
3. The Company's trading position has been good in recent
times.
4. The Union has agreed in principle to bring in an
independent third party to carry out a comprehensive study of
operations in the factory.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A number of the proposals are an endorsement of existing
work practices or are aspirations for the safety of its
employees and harmony between the Company, the workers and
the Union.
2. The workers can fulfil their daily target two hours
ahead of normal finishing.
3. Changes previously introduced in the Company did not
result in job losses.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions recommends that the parties
engage in negotiations on the agenda put forward by the Company
with a view to the implementation of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. in
accordance with the provisions of the clause.
The parties to seek to reach agreement within two weeks. In the
event agreement is not reached the Court will review the
negotiations and issue a recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th June, 1993 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. -------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.