Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92718 Case Number: LCR13979 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: J A MONT (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING UNION |
Claim for implementation of Phase 2 and Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the written and verbal
submissions of the parties, accepts that the intentions of the
Management, supported by the Union employees is to consolidate the
production function at Finglas. To this end, management has
concentrated its efforts on the elimination of unproductive
working and the removal of anomalies.
The Court considers that the sharing of responsibility between
craftsmen and operators, in very specific areas of work, and the
requirement for engineering craftsmen to be involved in simple
electrical tasks, falls far short of multi-skilling where the
interchange of skills is total.
The Court therefore recommends that the Union accepts the
management's proposals as set out in the 'maintenance programme'
from (1) to (9), with the exception of (6), anomalies.
In relation to this provision, the Court recommends that where the
anomaly is not shift-pay orientated, the Company's proposal should
apply, otherwise the individual should retain his rate on a
personal basis.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92718 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13979
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: J A MONT (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for implementation of Phase 2 and Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of a major European consumer products
Group. It comprises 28 plants, including 2 in Larne and 1 in
Finglas, Dublin. The Dublin plant employs approximately 180
workers. The Union is seeking the implementation of Phase 2 and
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. on behalf of 12 craftsmen (fitters), with
effect from the 1st of September, 1992.
The Company put forward a comprehensive set of proposals and
offered to implement Phase 2 and Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P in return
for acceptance of its proposals. The Union agreed to most of the
proposals but rejected the following items.
Item (1): Co-operation with continuation of skill-updating
programme.
Item (2): Shared responsibility with Operators for getting
Quality product chargeovers done in shortest
possible time.
Item (6): Anomalies to be discontinued by 1st July or phased
out over 4 years.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on the
18th of September, 1992 and a conciliation conference was held on
the 13th of November, 1992 at which the Company put forward an
expanded, but similar set of proposals which were rejected by the
Union.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of
November, 1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the
15th of January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Items (1) and (2) of the Company's proposals are 'Major
Changes' which will not be conceded in the context of the
P.E.S.P. The Company employs electricians only on a contract
basis and the proposal, if given effect, would result in the
fitters working as multi-skilled craftsmen.
2. The 'anomalies' in rates of pay are specific and justified
agreements, and their discontinuance would be to the detriment
of the individuals concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In recent months the market situation has deteriorated due
to general economic conditions. Increased production capacity
in the U.K. market has caused increased pressure on the
Company in Ireland. To protect existing business and jobs,
the Company will reduce its prices by #1.75m in 1993 (based on
a turnover of #30m in 1992).
2. Rates of pay in the Dublin plant are up to #70 p.w. higher
than the basic industry rate in the U.K. The high rates of
pay are a major contributory factor to the Company's
competitiveness problem.
3. As part of an overall Company programme to achieve and
maintain cost and price competitiveness, operating practices
and skills must be in line with workers in the Industry in
general, and must be competitive within the Group.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the written and verbal
submissions of the parties, accepts that the intentions of the
Management, supported by the Union employees is to consolidate the
production function at Finglas. To this end, management has
concentrated its efforts on the elimination of unproductive
working and the removal of anomalies.
The Court considers that the sharing of responsibility between
craftsmen and operators, in very specific areas of work, and the
requirement for engineering craftsmen to be involved in simple
electrical tasks, falls far short of multi-skilling where the
interchange of skills is total.
The Court therefore recommends that the Union accepts the
management's proposals as set out in the 'maintenance programme'
from (1) to (9), with the exception of (6), anomalies.
In relation to this provision, the Court recommends that where the
anomaly is not shift-pay orientated, the Company's proposal should
apply, otherwise the individual should retain his rate on a
personal basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
1st March, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.