Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93295 Case Number: LCR14212 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TACONIC INTERNATIONAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Disputes concerning the payment of 3% under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and the upgrading of workers in the P.T.F.E. Coating Department.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
(1) Clause 3 P.E.S.P. - In view of the financial information
submitted the Court is of the view that the Union should
agree to postpone pursuing their claim at this time. The
Court recommends that the parties review the situation at
the end of March and if agreement is not reached it may
be referred back directly to the Court.
(2) The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93295 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14212
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TACONIC INTERNATIONAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Disputes concerning the payment of 3% under the terms of
Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.) and the upgrading of workers in the P.T.F.E. Coating
Department.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is 40 years in operation and is involved in
the development and manufacture of high quality fluoropolyuer
resin and silicone elastomer coated fabrics. It employs 40
workers.
2. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
The Union made a claim on the Company for a 3% increase under
the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. on 1st January, 1992
which was the date of the second phase of the P.E.S.P. The
claim was based on co-operation and productivity. It was
rejected by the Company because of market and financial
considerations.
3. Local discussions concerning the issue took place during
1992 and 1993. The Union claimed that the Company had
committed itself to the payment of the 3% increase and as a
result the workers had co-operated fully in the implementation
of Total Quality Management (T.Q.M.) and 1S0 9,002. The
Company rejected the claim because of the economic and
financial climate.
4. P.T.F.E. Coating Department
The Company installed a 5th Oven to this Department in
September, 1990. The Union presented a claim for an increase
in manning levels from 3 to 4. The 5th oven was operated
under protest while the claim was being pursued. The claim
was investigated by the Irish Productivity Centre (I.P.C.) on
2 occasions and the existing manning levels were confirmed.
5. The Union interpreted the I.P.C. report to indicate an
increase in the productivity levels of the existing workers.
The Union presented a claim for a higher rate of pay (details
supplied) based on the increase in individual productivity
resulting from the installation of the 5th Oven. The Company
rejected the claim and no progress was possible through local
discussions.
6. The disputes were referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 24th
February, 1993. No progress was made at conciliation and the
disputes were referred to the Labour Court on 6th May, 1993
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 27th September, 1993
(the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
The Union obtained a commitment from the Company to open
negotiations in respect of the 3% increase under the terms of
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The Union accepted the Company's
commitment in good faith and co-operated fully with the
introduction of new work practices required for T.Q.M. and 1SO
9,002. The Union, at the Company's request, delayed the
presentation of its claim for a year. Despite the workers'
patience and productivity, the Company has tried to renege on
its commitment.
2. The Company has reneged on the workers' legitimate
expectation of a 3% increase for increased productivity. The
introduction of T.Q.M. and 1SO 9,002 procedures has impacted
heavily on the jobs of the workers which have changed beyond
recognition. Financially the workers have lost between 20 and
25 hours overtime per week and faster machine speeds are
producing 3 extra products. The workers have a greater
responsibility for improved output (details supplied) while
the Company has not paid a Christmas bonus for the last 2
years.
P.T.F.E. Coating Department
3. The Company introduced a 5th Oven for standby use. The
reality is that the 5th oven is in use constantly and the
workload has increased from 74% to 78% as measured by the
I.P.C. The workers have absorbed the increase in workload and
commenced 12-hour shifts (details supplied). The Union is
seeking an increase in pay to compensate for the increased
productivity. The increased rate is warranted in view of the
increased workload.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
The Company sustained losses in 1992 and this is expected to
continue for 1993. In recent years the Company has suffered
market and financial difficulties which are partially caused
by its high costs. The Company has been operating at a
reduced level of activity since 1991. Despite a fall in sales
and its loss-making position, the Company did not make any of
its workers redundant or bring in short-time working (details
supplied).
2. The Company made no commitment to pay the 3% increase
under the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The Company
cannot be viewed as trading in an exceptional manner and its
high costs will not allow it to pass on any further increases
to its customers. The Company's performance is still
deteriorating and its new owners (details supplied) will not
allow any increase in costs. The Company's wages and
conditions are excellent and a recent merger will allow some
confidence for the future.
P.T.F.E. Coating Department
3. The appropriate manning level for this department was
reviewed by the I.P.C.. Its recommendations were accepted and
implemented by the Company. The I.P.C. report did not examine
or establish normal performance and it did not comment on any
increase in productivity in the department. The Union's claim
is not based on any review of productivity and this has been
made clear by the Company and the I.P.C. The Company can
demonstrate that instead of increasing output, output and
usage have dropped considerably from a peak in 1990. The
addition of the 5th Oven did not increase output as all ovens
do not run on a continuous basis (details supplied).
Concession of the claim would disrupt the grading structure
and differentials within the plant.
4. The claim is cost-increasing and therefore outside the
terms of the P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
(1) Clause 3 P.E.S.P. - In view of the financial information
submitted the Court is of the view that the Union should
agree to postpone pursuing their claim at this time. The
Court recommends that the parties review the situation at
the end of March and if agreement is not reached it may
be referred back directly to the Court.
(2) The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
14th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.