Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95199 Case Number: LCR14722 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PRETTY POLLY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning short-time working.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and taking into
account the unusual circumstances in the background of the case,
the Court recommends that the Company agrees to pay the employees
a sum equivalent to 3 days' Social Welfare benefit. The payment
is recommended specifically in the unique circumstances of this
case and is not to be taken as creating any precedent.
The Court further notes the agreement between the parties to a
revised annual leave arrangements.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95199 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14722
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
PRETTY POLLY
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning short-time working.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company has been in operation in Killarney
manufacturing ladies hosiery for 28 years and it employs
150 workers. The ladies hosiery market has been in
decline since 1988. This has resulted in an increasing
frequency of short-time working in Killarney and intense
competitive pressures which forced the Company to reduce
prices by 30% during 1993.
2. Over the last 18 months, negotiations on restructuring
have taken place to reduce the cost base of the
operation. Over 250 redundancies have been effected and
a wage freeze and other cost saving measures have been
implemented. Following the re-structuring it was felt
that, in the medium term, the Killarney Plant would turn
out approximately 60,000 items per week (reduced from
120,000 in 1994). However, in March, 1995, the Company
advised the Union that it would have to reduce its
output by 16 days' production and lay-off the employees
as required. The Union objected and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
3. A conciliation conference was held on 21st March, 1994.
The Company was seeking to minimise the impact by moving
its 2 weeks' holidays from June to July. The Union was
seeking for the Company to top-up Social Welfare
payments to net pay levels. The Union's final position
was that the Company should pay the Social Welfare
equivalent of 3 waiting days, cut to 14 from 16 days the
duration of short-time. A combination of annual leave
and short-time would then cover the problem. The
Company claimed that it had no scope to compromise. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 27th March,
1995 under the terms of Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Labour Court investigated the
dispute on 4th April, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the last 18 months, the workers have undergone great
changes to their pay and conditions of employment. The
new regime of working was introduced on 15th August,
1994, and the Union was given to understand that
short-time working would not arise again.
2. Despite all its sacrifices, the Union made every effort
to come to an agreement with the Company on this issue
(details supplied). Unfortunately the Company was
unwilling to match the efforts of the workers by showing
some degree of goodwill.
3. The Company should be examining the possibility of
maintaining full-time employment through diversification
into one or more of a host of products manufactured by
the Sara Lee Corporation. Failing this, the minimum
which the workers expect is the preservation of their
net pay levels.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Despite its best efforts, the Company's sales of product
has not reached the planned levels. In these
circumstances, the Company cannot continue producing and
short-time working is necessary.
2. At no stage in the re-structuring was it agreed that the
requirement for further short-time working could not
arise. The cost to the Company of conceding the Union's
claim would be substantial (details supplied).
3. Ultimately the Company cannot control the market place
which has dictated that short-time working is necessary.
To assist in reducing the financial impact of the
short-time working, the Company proposed that the July
holiday period be moved to June.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and taking into
account the unusual circumstances in the background of the case,
the Court recommends that the Company agrees to pay the employees
a sum equivalent to 3 days' Social Welfare benefit. The payment
is recommended specifically in the unique circumstances of this
case and is not to be taken as creating any precedent.
The Court further notes the agreement between the parties to a
revised annual leave arrangements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th April, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.