Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93699 Case Number: LCR14333 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: A GUINNESS AND SONS AND CO. - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a proposed restructuring under the Company's Continuous Competitiveness Plan (C.C.P.).
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
by the parties to this dispute and has also taken into
consideration the progress of negotiations under the Continuous
Competitiveness Plan (C.C.P.). Whilst recognising the revised
approach by some of the Unions to the "common craft rate" the
Court is not satisfied that it would be justified at this stage in
making a recommendation which would in practice alter a long
standing principle.
The Court recognises the legitimacy of the Union's objective as
outlined in this claim but for the reasons stated above does not
consider it should recommend concession of the claim in the
context of the C.C.P.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union herein involved
accept the Company's offer and that the parties agree to address
the issue when discussing "Plan 2000".
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93699 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14333
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: A GUINNESS AND SONS AND CO.
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Dispute concerning a proposed restructuring under the
Company's Continuous Competitiveness Plan (C.C.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. C.C.P. was launched in June 1987 as a continuation of an
earlier preductivity plan. It involved the introduction of
new technology, new grading structures and the shedding of
jobs. Under the negotiations on C.C.P. (details supplied),
the workers have received a total of #4,000 in once-off
payments and 6% in salary increases.
2. The final strand of C.C.P. was to involve grade
restructuring throughout the Company and was to be discussed
on an integrated basis with all of the Unions in the Company.
Despite considerable time and effort being spent on this
aspect, two of the Unions withdrew from the negotiations and
sought to negotiate a closing payment for the C.C.P. The
workers represented by the Unions which withdrew received an
additional lump sum payment of #500 and 3% increase in basic
pay.
3. The two craft Unions have sought to continue
negotiations on grade restructuring. The Unions argue that
its members only agreed to the many concessions required by
the C.C.P. on the understanding that the grading structure
would be changed. The Company's reluctance to discuss
matters further is seen by the Unions as a breach of the
original understanding on C.C.P. negotiations.
4. The Company's position is that it has gone as far as
possible on grade restructuring. The Unions have rejected
all of its offers and it is now time to finish the C.C.P. on
the same terms as those which applied to the other Unions.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 14th
December, 1993. No progress was possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act 1990, on 14th December, 1993. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 16th December, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have undergone a radical updating of skills
and have had to accept major changes in work practices.
Despite its clear commitment to the contrary, the Company is
left with a rigid pay structure. If the Union attempts to go
into negotiations on the proposed "Plan 2,000" with the
present inflexible pay structure, the chances of a positive
outcome are seriously diminished.
2. The workers made many concessions during the
negotiations on C.C.P. Many of the concessions were
difficult and changed the workers traditional roles. The
change was accepted by the workers in the expectation that
their reward would be in a new pay structure. This was
clearly indicated by the Company.
3. It is wrong that the craft workers be confined to their
present grade simply because other Unions have pulled out of
negotiations on a new grade structure. No group should be
allowed to block another group from achieving a just pay
settlement. The Union is seeking the establishment of new
technical grades and the re grading of workers following an
agreed system of evaluation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The real payment for the range of concessions gained
through the C.C.P. was a very generous severance package
coupled with significant investment. The workers who
remained have the security of a well paid job combined with
promotional opportunities and significant payments (details
supplied).
2. In all the negotiations on grade restructuring, it was
clear that the Company of itself could not deliver such a
structure. It could only be delivered by agreement with all
categories.
3. All categories contributed and accepted significant
changes in C.C.P. The craftworkers were not more affected by
the plan than any other group. It is the Company's view that
while a specific structure could not be obtained, the
payments made during the negotiations are more than
reasonable (delatils supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
by the parties to this dispute and has also taken into
consideration the progress of negotiations under the Continuous
Competitiveness Plan (C.C.P.). Whilst recognising the revised
approach by some of the Unions to the "common craft rate" the
Court is not satisfied that it would be justified at this stage in
making a recommendation which would in practice alter a long
standing principle.
The Court recognises the legitimacy of the Union's objective as
outlined in this claim but for the reasons stated above does not
consider it should recommend concession of the claim in the
context of the C.C.P.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union herein involved
accept the Company's offer and that the parties agree to address
the issue when discussing "Plan 2000".
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd February, 1994. Evelyn Owens
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.