Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95138 Case Number: LCR14815 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED (IBEC) - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (M.S.F. |
Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR14257.
Recommendation:
The key issues outstanding between the parties to this dispute
were outlined in a letter dated 14th February, 1995, from the
Industrial Relations Officer of the Labour Relations Commission.
The Court concluded that the simplest way of addressing the
outstanding issue was to list them in order set out in that letter
and give its recommendation on each of the 17 issues.
1. Transfer between locations.
On the basis that transfers, from one location to the other
are implemented for strictly operational reasons the Court
recommends that the Union accepts the Company's proposals as
set out in Page 1 Appendix 7C.
2. Lifespan of warnings.
The Court recommends that the Company amends its proposals in
Appendix B to read - 8 months to clear verbal warning. The
rest of the proposals to remain.
3. Probationary period.
The Court recommends acceptance of the Company's proposals
subject to accepting that the Union is to be advised prior to
any extension being implemented.
4. Temporary employment.
The Company's position as set out in Section 31, Appendix 7A,
Page 2, is upheld with the addition that "a Union
representative is informed".
5. Change and new technology.
The Company's position is upheld provided the Union and
employees are advised.
6. Vouchers.
The Court finds in favour of the Company.
7. Christmas Holidays.
The Company's position is upheld subject to agreeing to
consult with the Union at least 2 months in advance.
8. Upgradings.
The Court supports the Union's view that the existing wording
be retained i.e., "subject to discussion".
9. Grievance procedure.
The Company's proposal is reasonable and the Court
accordingly recommends its acceptance.
10. Use of equipment.
The Court recommends the insertion of the work "trained" in
this clause. The revised clause to read - "It is recognised
that all personnel can and may use equipment that they are
trained and competent to use to fulfil the needs of the
Company".
11. Resignation/replacement.
The Court was informed that there had not been any problem in
the past on this issue. The Court accordingly finds in
favour of the Company and is satisfied that if any problem
arises it can be raised under existing procedures.
12. Bonus Scheme.
No evidence was submitted to convince the Court that there
was discrimination in the operation of the bonus scheme.
13. Salary Scheme.
The Court finds no basis for increasing the Technician salary
scale. The Court recommends the following salary scale for
Clerical Grades:
#9,000 X 12 - 17,565 - plus discretionary additional 4 points
to maximum of #19,700.
14. Leave.
No increase recommended.
15. VHI.
No change recommended.
16. Job sharing/career breaks.
The Court notes that the parties have now agreed a common
approach to introducing a job sharing/career break scheme and
endorses this position.
17. Pension Scheme.
The Court recommends that on implementation of the above the
parties should agree to set up a small working party to
examine and cost the improvements sought by the Union.
The Court recommends acceptance of the above 17 recommendation and
the implementation of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95138 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14815
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (M.S.F.)
SUBJECT:
1. Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No.
LCR14257.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 24th November, 1993, LCR14257 was issued. The dispute
concerned a claim by the Union for a 3% pay increase under
the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Part of Recommendation No. LCR14257 follows:-
"The Court, therefore, recommends that both sides jointly
examine and negotiate on all elements of the proposals
(both Company's and Union's) and suggests that the
parties seek the assistance of an Industrial Relations
Officer of the Labour Relations Commission for this
exercise. If at the end of this process, full agreement
is not achieved, the Court will issue a recommendation
based on an agreed statement of the element, or
elements, still remaining unresolved".
Two other Unions, Technical Engineering and Electrical Union
(T.E.E.U.) and Services Industrial Professional Technical
Union (S.I.P.T.U.) entered into agreements with the Company
on 7th February, 1994, and 15th April, 1994, respectively.
The Company is seeking joint agreement with the three unions.
On 24th October, 1994, a Comprehensive Agreement between the
parties, listing the elements of agreement, was issued.
There were still a number of items of disagreement and it was
agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Relations
Commission, as per LCR No. 14257.
Conciliation conferences were held on 12th and 16th January,
1995. The Industrial Relations Officer (IRO) identified 11
items of disagreement which are as follows:-
1. Transfer between locations.
2. Lifespan of warnings.
3. Probationary period.
4. Temporary employment.
5. Change and new technology.
6. Vouchers.
7. Christmas holidays.
8. Upgradings.
9. Grievance procedure.
10. Use of equipment.
11. Resignation/replacement.
A number of the issues in dispute (items 3,4,5,8 and 11
above) involved broad agreement between the parties but the
Union sought consultation first.
Item 1: The Company proposed that the current 2 weeks
maximum period of temporary transfer be increased
to 6 weeks. The Union agreed in principle and have
no objection to further extension by mutual
agreement. The Company maintains that workers have
a contractual obligation to work in all three
Dublin sites.
Item 2: The Union is prepared to agree to an increase in
the period to clear a verbal warning from 4 months
to 6 months. The Company wishes to have
commonalty with the agreements of S.I.P.T.U. and
T.E.E.U.
Item 9: The Company proposed that failure to heed a written
warning would bring a second written warning and
unpaid suspension. The Union claims that the issue
of upaid suspension has never been discussed and is
strongly opposed to it.
Item 10: The Company's proposal is that where workers are
trained in the use of a piece of equipment, there
should be no case where demarcation would prevent
them from so doing. The Union claims that this is
another issue which was never discussed and is
again opposed to the Company's proposal.
The IRO also listed 6 other items (bonus scheme, salary
scales, leave, VHI, job sharing/career breaks and pension
schemes), which the Union sought to address in the context of
a new agreement.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 17th
February, 1995, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on
20th April, 1995, (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union sought joint negotiations involving the three
Unions when discussing the claim for 3% pay increase
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The Company rejected the
offer. There is no precedent for a common agreement for
all three Unions. The pay structure and conditions of
workers in the Union are different to those of workers
in the other two unions.
2. In the discussions which took place on the issue of
Union consultation the Company stated that "the primacy
of the relationship in Loctite is between the Company
and the individual, not the Company and the Union".
This represents the the abandonment of collective
bargaining in favour of individual contracts. The Union
is strongly opposed to this as it could lead to a
situation where workers are coerced into accepting
changes to which they have legitimate objections.
3. The Company is extremely profitable. Productivity has
increased by 300% since 1985, with a reduced number of
permanent workers. This has been possible because of
the co-operation of all staff. The Union has gone as
far as it can to meet the Company's requirements,
including foregoing the 3% pay rise under P.E.S.P.
rather than accept the Company's terms. It has already
agreed to approximately 40 of the Company's proposals.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the agreements with S.I.P.T.U. and T.E.E.U. have
been signed there has been growth in manufacturing, both
in output and technology investment. Because of the
failure to reach agreement with the Union there has been
no growth or development in the Research, Development
and Engineering (R,D and E) section. There was a
greater level of change involved in the agreements with
S.I.P.T.U. and T.E.E.U. than in the agreement with the
Union.
2. The Company's proposals are fair and in line with
agreements in other companies. If the agreement with
the Union was to contain more favourable terms than
those of the other two unions it would lead to
difficulties. It is important for the growth and
development of the Company, and the future of the
workers, that the Company's proposals are accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The key issues outstanding between the parties to this dispute
were outlined in a letter dated 14th February, 1995, from the
Industrial Relations Officer of the Labour Relations Commission.
The Court concluded that the simplest way of addressing the
outstanding issue was to list them in order set out in that letter
and give its recommendation on each of the 17 issues.
1. Transfer between locations.
On the basis that transfers, from one location to the other
are implemented for strictly operational reasons the Court
recommends that the Union accepts the Company's proposals as
set out in Page 1 Appendix 7C.
2. Lifespan of warnings.
The Court recommends that the Company amends its proposals in
Appendix B to read - 8 months to clear verbal warning. The
rest of the proposals to remain.
3. Probationary period.
The Court recommends acceptance of the Company's proposals
subject to accepting that the Union is to be advised prior to
any extension being implemented.
4. Temporary employment.
The Company's position as set out in Section 31, Appendix 7A,
Page 2, is upheld with the addition that "a Union
representative is informed".
5. Change and new technology.
The Company's position is upheld provided the Union and
employees are advised.
6. Vouchers.
The Court finds in favour of the Company.
7. Christmas Holidays.
The Company's position is upheld subject to agreeing to
consult with the Union at least 2 months in advance.
8. Upgradings.
The Court supports the Union's view that the existing wording
be retained i.e., "subject to discussion".
9. Grievance procedure.
The Company's proposal is reasonable and the Court
accordingly recommends its acceptance.
10. Use of equipment.
The Court recommends the insertion of the work "trained" in
this clause. The revised clause to read - "It is recognised
that all personnel can and may use equipment that they are
trained and competent to use to fulfil the needs of the
Company".
11. Resignation/replacement.
The Court was informed that there had not been any problem in
the past on this issue. The Court accordingly finds in
favour of the Company and is satisfied that if any problem
arises it can be raised under existing procedures.
12. Bonus Scheme.
No evidence was submitted to convince the Court that there
was discrimination in the operation of the bonus scheme.
13. Salary Scheme.
The Court finds no basis for increasing the Technician salary
scale. The Court recommends the following salary scale for
Clerical Grades:
#9,000 X 12 - 17,565 - plus discretionary additional 4 points
to maximum of #19,700.
14. Leave.
No increase recommended.
15. VHI.
No change recommended.
16. Job sharing/career breaks.
The Court notes that the parties have now agreed a common
approach to introducing a job sharing/career break scheme and
endorses this position.
17. Pension Scheme.
The Court recommends that on implementation of the above the
parties should agree to set up a small working party to
examine and cost the improvements sought by the Union.
The Court recommends acceptance of the above 17 recommendation and
the implementation of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th June, 1995 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.