Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9524 Case Number: LCR14717 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: GAELTARRA KNITWEAR LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Rationalisation/P.E.S.P./P.C.W.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of
the parties makes the following Recommendation:-
(a) The workers concerned accept the Company proposals for
changes in work practices.
(b) The Company pay the two outstanding phases of P.E.S.P.
and first phase of P.C.W., to the workers concerned,
from date of implementation.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9524 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14717
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
GAELTARRA KNITWEAR LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Rationalisation/P.E.S.P./P.C.W.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Gaeltarra Eireann was the subject of a management
take-over in 1994. At the time of takeover the Company
assumed responsibility for accumulated losses of
#790,000. The Company is involved in the manufacture of
high quality knitwear garments. The Company employs
approximately 68 workers at two factories, one in
Tourmakeady (60 staff), and the other at Belmullet (8
staff).
The Company is claiming inability to implement Phase 2
and 3 of the P.E.S.P. and the 1st Phase of the P.C.W.
because of its financial situation. It is proposing a
major restructuring of its operations to achieve better
efficiency all round. The Union has agreed to most of
the changes proposed. However changes in the knitting
room were not agreed.
The issues in dispute were referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took
place on 21st March, 1994, 26th October, 1994, and 1st
December, 1994, but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on 10th January, 1995 in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 2nd
February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have received no pay increase over the past
4 years. The Union has co-operated with the Company in
every way to help achieve increased productivity.
The workers have shown great tolerance and patience with
the Company over the past 4 years and request that the
Company implement the 2nd and 3rd Phase of P.E.S.P. and
1st Phase of the P.C.W. which is owed to them.
2. The proposed new changes which will operate on a trial
basis will affect mechanics in the knitting operation
and also involve them in taking on the role of
supervisors. The changes will fundamentally shift the
method of payment of mechanics, from an hourly paid
basis, to one of a mixture of hourly paid plus piece
work rate. The proposal has lead to considerable
concern on the part of mechanics because of the possible
loss of pay. Agreement was not concluded in respect of
proposals put forward by the Company in relation to the
knitting room. The Company proposals in relation to the
knitting area will have serious repercussions for the
workers concerned. The workers fear that it will lead
to a serious reduction in their wages. The Company has
failed to assure the workers in the knitting area that
they will not be worse off when the proposed new working
practices are implemented.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has experienced a considerable decline in
business over the past number of years, with losses
totalling #550,000 and sales declining by over 20%. A
programme of re-structuring was drawn up by Management
with a view to making the business viable for the
future. A survival package was presented to the Trade
Union and employees in January, 1994 outlining essential
savings of #100,000 per annum. The necessity for the
postponement of wage increases until such time as the
Company is in a position to meet its liabilities was
also conveyed at that time.
2. At present the staffing level in the Company is too high
and too expensive to sustain. The Company staffing
structure of 2 knitters plus 1 mechanic per shift to
operate 12 knitting machines contrasts sharply with that
of its competitors where a level in excess of 7 knitting
machines per person is in operation. In other cases
where the number of machines per person is less than 7
the operators are expected to carry out additional
duties, which in Gaeltarra are carried out by non-
knitting operators. The nature of operations in the
knitting room is such that there is no absolute limit to
the number of machines a worker can be allocated. The
machines do not require an operator to be in attendance
at fixed times or for fixed durations. The knitting
room is an area where the Company can achieve
efficiency.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of
the parties makes the following Recommendation:-
(a) The workers concerned accept the Company proposals for
changes in work practices.
(b) The Company pay the two outstanding phases of P.E.S.P.
and first phase of P.C.W., to the workers concerned,
from date of implementation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st March, 1995 Finbarr Flood
L.W./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.