Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95246 Case Number: LCR14783 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TARKETT LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the introduction of team working.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the detailed oral and written submissions
made by the parties.
The Court finds that, given the need to restructure on a team
basis to reduce costs and given that such restructuring was likely
to require the integration of operative and supervisory workers,
the approach to the negotiations on a separate basis with foremen
and operatives was not conducive to agreeing arrangements
acceptable to all parties.
Having said this the Court considers that if the Company is to be
cost effective and to provide secure employment the introduction
of the new structure should be effected.
The Court readily recognises the views being expressed by the
foremen given the changes proposed and the effect of these changes
on the terms and conditions of the employment and in certain
instances on the status of the workers concerned.
The Court considers the parties should agree arrangements which
would enable the foremen to integrate into the new structures
whilst at the same time addressing the issues raised by them.
Accordingly, it is the view of the Court that the parties should
negotiate arrangements which will result in the introduction of
the teamwork structure and ensure the co-operation of all the
staff concerned.
The Court recommends that to achieve this end the workers
concerned be permitted to take voluntary redundancy should they so
choose and that the parties negotiate a basis for the integration
of the remaining foremen into a teamwork structure.
The negotiations should include the options put forward by the
Company but should also take account of the skill, experience, and
the impact of the changes in terms and conditions of employment
and status of the workers concerned and should include a package
of measures which will ameliorate these as far as possible.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95246 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14783
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TARKETT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of team working.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is involved in the manufacture of vinyl
flooring and employs 229 workers. It is owned by a U.K.
based finance institution. The Company, in recent
times, has experienced increased costs and very severe
competition in the market place from Far Eastern
countries. In March 1995, management announced a
restructuring programme which will lead to the
displacement of 13 foremen. The Company is anxious to
retain these workers and has offered them positions
within the Company as general operatives on the general
operative rate of pay. The Company has offered
compensation for redeployment. Alternatively, the
Company is offering the workers concerned the option of
voluntary redundancy or early retirement.
2. The Union rejected the Company's proposals at local
level discussions. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on the 12th April, 1995. Agreement
was not possible and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the
12th April, 1995. The Court investigated the dispute on
the 4th May, 1995. A letter Recommendation was issued
on the 31st May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposals involve substantial and
significant changes in work practices which will result
in the disbandment of the foreman grade. The Union was
not adequately consulted about these far reaching
changes. This lack of consultation is in breach of the
Company/Union agreement.
2. Foremen have been employed at the plant since the
commencement of operations there over eighteen years
ago. These workers have been diligent employees over
this time. They are front line managers but the Union
is now advised that, because the Company wishes to
improve profits by 9%, the foreman grade is to be
eliminated.
3. The Union in discussions with the Company offered to
negotiate a "Team Working Agreement" similar to that
operating in Semperit Ireland (details supplied to the
Court). The Union contends that this is a reasonable
solution. Alternatively, the foreman group should be
retained in its present form. The Company proposals to
regrade foremen as general operatives or the redundancy
alternative is not acceptable to the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is essential that the Company reduce costs in order
to remain competitive. The restructuring plan proposed
is vital for the Company's survival. The substantial
increase in the cost of raw materials (14%) and other
overheads cannot be recovered from the customer. In the
market place a 5% maximum increase is possible. The
balance therefore, has to be achieved in the plant to
remain competitive.
2. Under the Company's proposals semi-autonomous work teams
would be used to solve the ongoing yield and performance
problems by using to the full the potential of the
workforce. The position of foreman is incompatible with
the method of operation of semi-autonomous work teams.
3. The Company is prepared to employ the foremen as general
operatives. The issue of the reduction in earnings can
be discussed and compensation negotiated. Management
cannot contemplate red-circling or special rates for
foremen reverting to general operatives due to the
consideration of costs and relativities.
4. Another Union within the plant whose workers are
affected by the proposed changes has responded
positively to the Company's restructuring plan. This
Union represents the majority of the workforce in the
plant.
5. There is no alternative solution to the Company's very
difficult situation other than in the Company's
proposals and due to the current cost related
difficulties it is imperative that the plan is speedily
implemented.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the detailed oral and written submissions
made by the parties.
The Court finds that, given the need to restructure on a team
basis to reduce costs and given that such restructuring was likely
to require the integration of operative and supervisory workers,
the approach to the negotiations on a separate basis with foremen
and operatives was not conducive to agreeing arrangements
acceptable to all parties.
Having said this the Court considers that if the Company is to be
cost effective and to provide secure employment the introduction
of the new structure should be effected.
The Court readily recognises the views being expressed by the
foremen given the changes proposed and the effect of these changes
on the terms and conditions of the employment and in certain
instances on the status of the workers concerned.
The Court considers the parties should agree arrangements which
would enable the foremen to integrate into the new structures
whilst at the same time addressing the issues raised by them.
Accordingly, it is the view of the Court that the parties should
negotiate arrangements which will result in the introduction of
the teamwork structure and ensure the co-operation of all the
staff concerned.
The Court recommends that to achieve this end the workers
concerned be permitted to take voluntary redundancy should they so
choose and that the parties negotiate a basis for the integration
of the remaining foremen into a teamwork structure.
The negotiations should include the options put forward by the
Company but should also take account of the skill, experience, and
the impact of the changes in terms and conditions of employment
and status of the workers concerned and should include a package
of measures which will ameliorate these as far as possible.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th June, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.