Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94147 Case Number: LCR14480 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BAILEY GIBSON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;SIPTU |
(i) Flexibility; (ii) New work practices; (iii) Redundancy; (iv) Financial Package for the Plan.
Recommendation:
The Court has examined the various points made by the parties in
support of their position on the items in dispute.
The Court recognises that considerable progress was made in the
course of local discussions and at Conciliation level and is of
the view that the outcome of these negotiations forms the basis
for settlement of the dispute. Being conscious of the
difficulties which employees and the Company have been
experiencing in recent years, the Court further would urge the
employees to recognise that even though significant change has
occurred in the industry already, that process has not been
completed, and will be essential for the retention of employment
over years to come.
The Court recommends as follows on the items referred:-
(1) In view of the sensitivity of the changes sought by the
Company in work practices the Court recommends that the
Company agree to implement those changes agreed to date
by the Union, and that such changes be the subject of
review by both parties after a trial period of three
months, from date of implementation, this review to be
carried out by both Union and Management.
(2) The number of redundancies now sought is three. The
Court notes that the parties had agreed that payment of
redundancy be on pool basis.
(3) Payment of compensation by way of a once-off lump sum of
#3,000 per employee remaining in the area, on a phased
basis when economically possible.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94147 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14480
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BAILEY GIBSON LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (i) Flexibility; (ii) New work practices; (iii) Redundancy;
(iv) Financial Package for the Plan.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of the Clondalkin Paper Mills Group and
is involved in the folding carton business.
The workers concerned (male/female) are employed by the
Company in the glueing department as journey-persons and
general operatives. Female operatives are represented by one
branch of S.I.P.T.U. (Women Workers' Branch) and males are
represented by another (Printing Trades Branch).
In recent years rationalisation programmes have been
implemented in the printing and diecutting departments. In
June, 1993, local level discussions took place regarding the
glueing department at which the Company sought the
following:-
flexibility: an end to inter-branch demarcation
between the Women Workers' Branch of
S.I.P.T.U. and the Printing Trades
Branch of the same Union;
new work the introduction of new work
practices: practices, which would result in some
redundancies;
redundancy to negotiate a revised redundancy
package: package;
financial to negotiate a financial package for
package: those operating the new work
practices.
No agreement was reached. The matter was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences held
on 22nd November, 1993 and 7th December, 1993, were adjourned
to allow for further local level discussions and to allow the
Industrial Relations Officer to prepare a position paper on
the issues between the parties. A final conciliation
conference was held on 20th January, 1994. As agreement
could not be reached, the matter was referred by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court on 8th March, 1994.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 19th May, 1994 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
FLEXIBILITY
3. The Company is seeking an end to inter branch demarcation
between the Womens Workers' Branch (W.W.B.) and the Printing
Trades Branch (P.T.B.), of S.I.P.T.U. which precludes members
of one branch from doing the work of the other.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The W.W.B. on behalf of journey-persons has for some
time been seeking full craft status. Any changes which
would impact negatively on this claim would be strongly
resisted.
2. The demarcation that exists between the W.W.B. and
P.T.B. applies strictly across the whole industry and is
a matter for the Irish Print Federation (I.P.F.) and the
Dublin Printing Group of Unions.
3. The Company resigned from the I.P.F. with the sole
intention of undermining the conditions negotiated with
the I.P.F. and the Industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Demarcation causes the glueing department to function
inefficiently by unnecessarily involving a number of
different people at different stages. The elimination
of demarcation would result in a significant improvement
in the operations of the department. It would allow
management to allocate full responsibility for the
complete execution of routine tasks to single
individuals.
NEW WORK PRACTICES
4. The Company is seeking the flexibility and interchangeability
necessary to improve productivity by introducing new work
practices.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Some flexibility is possible with the required training
within the following guidelines:-
- In the absence of the spare general operative.
- In the absence of a journey-person and the existing
production schedules on the floor cannot be met.
- During long-term absenteeism/planned annual leave.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's glueing costs are considerably higher than
those of its competitors.
2. Outmoded and inefficient work practices need to be
addressed and rectified in order to ensure the future
viability of the Company.
REDUNDANCY
5. The Company has paid standard redundancy terms of 2 weeks'
pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements
for over 30 redundancies. In August, 1993, the Labour Court
issued LCR No. 14168 in which it recommended 3 weeks' pay per
year of service in relation to 2 clerical workers employed by
the Company. The Union sought the same terms for the
proposed redundancies. The Company rejected the claim.
The Company's offer is as follows:-
- 2 weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory,
subject to a maximum of 30 years' service.
- 8 weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
- additional cash gratuity, dependent on service, of:
5 years #200
5 - 10 years #300
10 - 15 years #400
15 - 20 years #500
20 - 30 years #1,000
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union reverted to its original claim for a
redundancy pool at the conciliation conference on 20th
January, 1994, on the understanding that 3 weeks' pay
per year of service was unattainable. On 21st August,
1993, the Company accepted LCR No. 14168 and dismissed
a clerical worker with 3 weeks' pay per year of service.
The workers felt cheated by the Company's actions and in
the circumstances, 3 weeks' pay per year of service is
justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company has made record losses in recent years.
Only in one instance of a compulsory redundancy in 1993
were terms in excess of the above paid.
FINANCIAL PACKAGE:
6. The Company has offered a productivity payment of 5% in
proportion to the savings achieved, payable as a lump-sum.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The proposed changes would result in substantial savings
to the Company. In the circumstances a breakdown of 1/3
to the employer, 1/3 to the customer and 1/3 to the
employees is not unusual.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has recorded substantial losses in recent
years. It is in a survival situation and savings are
necessary to enable it to achieve competitiveness. In
the circumstances, the Union's claim of 33% is
unjustified and is not economically possible.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has examined the various points made by the parties in
support of their position on the items in dispute.
The Court recognises that considerable progress was made in the
course of local discussions and at Conciliation level and is of
the view that the outcome of these negotiations forms the basis
for settlement of the dispute. Being conscious of the
difficulties which employees and the Company have been
experiencing in recent years, the Court further would urge the
employees to recognise that even though significant change has
occurred in the industry already, that process has not been
completed, and will be essential for the retention of employment
over years to come.
The Court recommends as follows on the items referred:-
(1) In view of the sensitivity of the changes sought by the
Company in work practices the Court recommends that the
Company agree to implement those changes agreed to date
by the Union, and that such changes be the subject of
review by both parties after a trial period of three
months, from date of implementation, this review to be
carried out by both Union and Management.
(2) The number of redundancies now sought is three. The
Court notes that the parties had agreed that payment of
redundancy be on pool basis.
(3) Payment of compensation by way of a once-off lump sum of
#3,000 per employee remaining in the area, on a phased
basis when economically possible.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st June, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B../M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.