Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93184 Case Number: LCR14082 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PAKO (EUROPE) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning withdrawal of full canteen facilities.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, and having examined the company
accounts, the Court is of the view that the curtailment of all
overhead costs, including canteen costs is essential to the
continuation of the Company.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union accept the limit
of #10,000 on the Company subvention to the canteen and that the
Company has urgent discussions with the Union on the best
price/choice combination to meet the financial restrictions and
the requirements of the workers. If agreement is not reached by
1st June, 1993, the Court recommends that the Company decision on
the mix be accepted by the Union.
The Court makes this recommendation for a two year period, at the
end of which the position should be reviewed in the light of the
Company's financial position.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93184 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14082
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: PAKO (EUROPE) LIMITED
(Represented by the The Irish Business Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning withdrawal of full canteen facilities.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of photo processors
for the graphic arts industry. It employs 80 workers. The
Company sustained substantial losses in 1992 and was taken over by
Cordell Reidy a U.S. based Company which carried out widespread
rationalisation. The U.S. parent Company requires Pako to
substantially reduce overheads. As part of its cost reduction
programme the Company proposes to reduce its canteen subsidy from
#36,000 to #10,000 p.a. which will result in an increase in the
cost of meals for the workers concerned. The Union rejected the
Company's proposals. The issue was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the
24th February, 1993. As no agreement was reached the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd March, 1993. A Court
hearing was held on the 5th May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposal represents a major change in the
conditions of employment of the workers concerned. It was
done without prior consultation with the Union and seriously
undermines agreements entered into by the Company when
it recruited the workers.
2. Management only sought alternative quotes for the
running of the canteen from other caterers when this issue was
raised by the Union. No survey was carried out of existing
services to ascertain if savings could be made in areas where
costs were high and demand low.
3. The reduction in the canteen subsidy will mean an
increased cost to the workers of approximately #7 per week.
They are already heavily burdened with costs. They have
geared their family commitments towards present canteen
facilities and arrangements which are part and parcel of their
working conditions. The canteen conditions are adequate and
important for the morale of the workforce. The Company's
proposal will adversely affect conditions and damage workers'
morale.
4 Management's proposed reduction in the canteen subsidy
will save the Company approximately #500 per month. The Union
does not accept that this is vital to Company survival nor
will it have a major impact on the future of the Company. It
has saved significantly by the non-replacement of workers who
have left the employment. It is certain that 2/3 workers will
leave before the end of this year which will save the Company
a further #30,000-#40,000. The Company must retain the
facilities for the remainder of the workforce.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The current level of canteen service and the prices
charged there, are not justified having regard to the number
of workers employed and the serious financial problems facing
the Company. (Details supplied to the Court). Prices charged
are low relative to other companies. The average main meal
price is #1.80 while Pako charge 88p. The Company's proposed
main meal price of #1.40 is still relatively low.
2. The Company consulted the Union regarding preferred
options on levels of service within the subsidy limit of
#10,000. The Union refused to acknowledge the Company's
requirement to cut costs by insisting that there be no change
in prices or service levels.
3. The Company must prioritise areas where cash is spent
for rationalisation. The Company, through lack of cash for
raw materials, was forced to engage in stop-start production
in recent times. This is inherently uneconomic and
exacerbates Company difficulties. During this time workers
had to take an unscheduled weeks holiday as an alternative to
lay-off. Against this background a canteen subsidy of #3,000
per month is a lesser priority than keeping workers in
employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, and having examined the company
accounts, the Court is of the view that the curtailment of all
overhead costs, including canteen costs is essential to the
continuation of the Company.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union accept the limit
of #10,000 on the Company subvention to the canteen and that the
Company has urgent discussions with the Union on the best
price/choice combination to meet the financial restrictions and
the requirements of the workers. If agreement is not reached by
1st June, 1993, the Court recommends that the Company decision on
the mix be accepted by the Union.
The Court makes this recommendation for a two year period, at the
end of which the position should be reviewed in the light of the
Company's financial position.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
14th May, 1993 ---------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.