Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93685 Case Number: LCR14338 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ATLANTIC MILLS LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's Investment Restructuring Plan and payment of the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
(a) The dispute regarding the implementation of Clause 3 of
PESP and the Company's proposed rationalisation plan be
treated separately.
(b) Clause 3 of PESP clearly envisages negotiations taking
place between Company and Unions on payment of an
additional increase up to 3%. The Court accordingly
recommends that such negotiations take place and that
both parties take cognisance of the fact that there has
been voluntary reduction in the number of craft workers
employed within the period covered by Clause 3.
(c) The Court accepts that rationalisation is required and
accordingly recommends that as a matter of urgency the
parties negotiate how such rationalisation can be
implemented
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93685 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14338
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ATLANTIC MILLS LIMITED
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's Investment Restructuring
Plan and payment of the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause
3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 450 workers at its plants in
Tullamore and Longford. The dispute concerns 27 craftsmen (7
in Tullamore, 20 in Longford). In May, 1993 the Company
introduced a major Investment and Restructuring Plan
involving a reduction in the workforce and changes in work
practices. In June, 1993 as part of the plan the Company
negotiated a significant number of redundancies with another
Union representing general workers in both plants, in return
for payment of the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause
3 of PESP. Subsequently the Company entered negotiations
with the craft unions and offered the 3% increase in return
for two redundancies (1 Tullamore - 1 Longford) and various
productivity measures and changes in work practices provided
for in the Plan. The Unions rejected Management's offer
linking implementation of the Investment and Restructuring
Plan with payment of the 3% increase. It claimed that the
two issues should be treated separately.
2. As no agreement was reached at local discussions the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on the 23rd September and
26th November, 1993, but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 9th December, 1993. The Court
investigated the dispute in Tullamore on the 1st February,
1994.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions have already made significant concessions to
the Company by way of increased productivity and changes in
work practices. Two craftsmen left the Company in 1992/3 and
were not replaced. The Unions therefore effectively conceded
two redundancies which equated to a 7% reduction in
craftworker numbers. The workers concerned must be paid the
3% increase in return for these concessions. The Company
cannot link payment of the 3% increase with job
rationalisation and implementation of new structures under
its Investment and Restructuring Plan.
2. The Unions do not object to separate discussions (after
payment of the 3% increase) on the Company's Plan. The
Unions however object to the further two redundancies
proposed under the plan and meaningful discussions cannot
take place until the proposed redundancies are withdrawn.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is prepared to negotiate the 3% increase
under PESP in the same manner as successfully completed with
the Union representing the majority of the workforce at both
plants. The Unions' position in resisting the proposed two
redundancies is totally unreasonable and puts the future
viability of the the Company at risk.
2. The workers concerned were more than adequately
compensated for past changes when they received the basic
increases under PESP plus a 5.5% increase in 1991 under the
Company's Engineering Plan (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Investment and Restructuring Plan is the minimum
requirement necessary to maintain the future viability of the
Company and to secure the employment of workers at both
plants.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
(a) The dispute regarding the implementation of Clause 3 of
PESP and the Company's proposed rationalisation plan be
treated separately.
(b) Clause 3 of PESP clearly envisages negotiations taking
place between Company and Unions on payment of an
additional increase up to 3%. The Court accordingly
recommends that such negotiations take place and that
both parties take cognisance of the fact that there has
been voluntary reduction in the number of craft workers
employed within the period covered by Clause 3.
(c) The Court accepts that rationalisation is required and
accordingly recommends that as a matter of urgency the
parties negotiate how such rationalisation can be
implemented
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th February, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.