Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93556 Case Number: LCR14211 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning rationalisation proposals.
Recommendation:
4. (1) BONUS
Bonus which to date has given a payment of #87 for the
period from September, 1992 to June 1993 be translated
into an annual payment of #150 to be paid in two moieties
at Christmas and Summer.
(2) SENIORITY
The Union expressed deep-set suspicion as to how this
would operate in the future. The Court received an
assurance from the Company that Clause (d) of the
proposals set out in Paragraph 4 headed Shift-working
(Appendix A) would not be implemented and that seniority
as at present operated would continue in that way in the
post-redundancy situation. The Court also notes that the
Company is prepared to pay compensation at the normal
agreed rate to anyone moved back on shift e.g. days to 2
shift #1000 net and anyone moved back 2 shifts #1500 net.
The Court understands this will affect 10 employees. The
Court accordingly recommends that the Union accepts the
Company's position.
(3) PROCEDURAL AGREEMENT
The Court notes that the parties are prepared to discuss
the adoption of a new Procedural Agreement designed to
meet the Company's requirement for a 7 hour working day
and new flexibility. In particular the concept of team
work where it can be operated should be dealt with in
these negotiations. In the event of any difficulty
arising in the finalisation of the above discussions, the
Court is prepared to assist on foot of a joint referral.
(4) PAYMENT BY CHEQUE
In view of the Union's strong opposition to the proposal
to cease cash payment the Court recommends that the
Company do not proceed with the transfer to "cheque"
payment at present.
(5) CANTEEN, TRANSPORT AND WASH UP TIME
The Court accepts that the Company must achieve a 7 hour
working day. The Union submits that, that does not
present a problem to its members. The Court accepts that
in some parts of the plant "wash up time" is essential
whereas the same "dirt" factor does not necessarily apply
throughout the plant. Local negotiation are obviously
necessary to identify the different areas and the Court
recommends they take place immediately. The Court further
recommends that the Union accepts the Company's proposals
for the opening and closing of the canteen and that the
parties agree that the bus leaves for town 10 minutes
after finishing time.
(6) REDUNDANCY PACKAGE
The Court recommends acceptance of the package as offered.
If accepted the above recommendation will have widespread
effects on the workers and will require maximum
co-operation between both the Company and the Union. To
assist the parties in implementing the changes the Court
recommends that an in-house committee representing the
Union and the Management be set up immediately. The
functions of the Committee would include inter-alia-:
level of work loads; encouraging team work; dealing with
grievances; drafting a new Procedural Agreement;
disseminating information and identifying targets. The
Court suggests that this committee be made up of no more
than 8 i.e. 4 from each side.
The Court urges both parties to this dispute to accept the above
Recommendation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93556 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14211
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Act, 1990
PARTIES: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning rationalisation proposals.
BACKGROUND:
2. A Labour Court investigation into the above dispute took place
on 6th October, 1993.
THE COURT'S FINDINGS:
3. 1. In the first instance the Court wishes to express its
concern with regard to the survival of the plant and the
retention of the maximum number of jobs. The Court is
satisfied that to achieve this objective all parties concerned
will have to face up to change; both in the production and
industrial relations areas. It will be necessary for survival
that co-operation and flexibility be given by the workers and
for the Company's part that they be open with their employees
and embark on a policy of worker involvement in decision
making and giving full information on the progress of the
Company.
2. The Court recognises that the workers over the years have
accepted and co-operated in change but the scale of changes
now required is far in excess of anything which was required
heretofore. The Court had the above requirements foremost in
mind in addressing the problems raised by the parties to the
dispute. The Court sets out its Recommendation hereunder on
each specific point referred to in the written submissions.
For convenience they are set out in the order presented in the
Union's submission and not necessarily in any order of
priority.
RECOMMENDATION
4. (1) BONUS
Bonus which to date has given a payment of #87 for the
period from September, 1992 to June 1993 be translated
into an annual payment of #150 to be paid in two moieties
at Christmas and Summer.
(2) SENIORITY
The Union expressed deep-set suspicion as to how this
would operate in the future. The Court received an
assurance from the Company that Clause (d) of the
proposals set out in Paragraph 4 headed Shift-working
(Appendix A) would not be implemented and that seniority
as at present operated would continue in that way in the
post-redundancy situation. The Court also notes that the
Company is prepared to pay compensation at the normal
agreed rate to anyone moved back on shift e.g. days to 2
shift #1000 net and anyone moved back 2 shifts #1500 net.
The Court understands this will affect 10 employees. The
Court accordingly recommends that the Union accepts the
Company's position.
(3) PROCEDURAL AGREEMENT
The Court notes that the parties are prepared to discuss
the adoption of a new Procedural Agreement designed to
meet the Company's requirement for a 7 hour working day
and new flexibility. In particular the concept of team
work where it can be operated should be dealt with in
these negotiations. In the event of any difficulty
arising in the finalisation of the above discussions, the
Court is prepared to assist on foot of a joint referral.
(4) PAYMENT BY CHEQUE
In view of the Union's strong opposition to the proposal
to cease cash payment the Court recommends that the
Company do not proceed with the transfer to "cheque"
payment at present.
(5) CANTEEN, TRANSPORT AND WASH UP TIME
The Court accepts that the Company must achieve a 7 hour
working day. The Union submits that, that does not
present a problem to its members. The Court accepts that
in some parts of the plant "wash up time" is essential
whereas the same "dirt" factor does not necessarily apply
throughout the plant. Local negotiation are obviously
necessary to identify the different areas and the Court
recommends they take place immediately. The Court further
recommends that the Union accepts the Company's proposals
for the opening and closing of the canteen and that the
parties agree that the bus leaves for town 10 minutes
after finishing time.
(6) REDUNDANCY PACKAGE
The Court recommends acceptance of the package as offered.
If accepted the above recommendation will have widespread
effects on the workers and will require maximum
co-operation between both the Company and the Union. To
assist the parties in implementing the changes the Court
recommends that an in-house committee representing the
Union and the Management be set up immediately. The
functions of the Committee would include inter-alia-:
level of work loads; encouraging team work; dealing with
grievances; drafting a new Procedural Agreement;
disseminating information and identifying targets. The
Court suggests that this committee be made up of no more
than 8 i.e. 4 from each side.
The Court urges both parties to this dispute to accept the above
Recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
11th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.