Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94725 Case Number: LCR14698 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE, LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING & ELECTRICAL UNION |
Implementation of Production Rationalisation Plan (PDP).
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that there is agreement in principle between
the parties as to the need for a Development Plan. The Court also
recognises that considerable progress was made at various stages at
conciliation.
The Union's strongly held view that another group of workers had
received extra payments resulted in the break-down at conciliation.
The Court has examined this point and is satisfied that whereas
payments were made to other workers, the same circumstances do not
apply in this case and accordingly the claim cannot be sustained.
The Court further notes that at conciliation broad agreement was
deemed possible on items (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (I) (J) (L) (M)
(O) (P) (Q) (R) (V) (W) (reference document headed "Engineering
Document" and signed P. Cooney, Factory Manager, dated 23rd
November, 1994).
The Court recommends that the Union also accepts items (H) and (N),
and that the Company delete (S).
With particular reference to (K), the Court is of the view that the
Union should also accept this proposal in the context of the
further discussions that would be necessary to finalise this
proposal.
With regard to T & U the following be implemented;
The Union agrees to operate T (a) (b) (c) and (d) and the Company
agree to a moratorium of 2 years on external appointments.
On acceptance of the above the Company agree to pay the 3% Clause 3
of P.E.S.P. from a date two years prior to date of acceptance.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94725 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14698
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE, LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONFEDERATION)
and
TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING & ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Implementation of Production Rationalisation Plan (PDP).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the rejection by 8 craftsmen, in the
Company's maintenance department, of the Company's Production
Rationalisation Plan (PDP).
3. In February, 1992, the Company implemented the PDP which
involved a number of changes in working conditions in an effort to
reduce rising costs. The plan was accepted by general operatives
in the production department, including members of Services
Industrial Professional Technical Union (S.I.P.T.U.), but not by
the Union involved in this claim.
4. The workers who accepted the PDP received a taxable lump sum
of #4,000 plus a 3% pay increase under Clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (PESP). The Union claims that
the S.I.P.T.U. workers also received compensation for loss of
overtime at a rate of 3 times the yearly amount of the loss plus
other compensation. The Company denies that any other
compensation was paid to the S.I.P.T.U. workers or general
operatives. It maintains that the deal offered to the Union
(#4,000 lump sum and 3% under clause 3 of PESP) is exactly the
same as that accepted by the general operatives.
5. The dispute was the subject of a number of meetings at local
level. It was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and 5
hearings took place. As no agreement was reached it was agreed to
refer the dispute to the Labour Court on 20th December, 1994. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 27th January, 1995 (the
earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has agreed to a large number of changes
(details supplied to the Court) in accepting the PDP. It has
also agreed to the Company's multi-skilling concept and a
reduction of the workforce (a fitter).
2. The general operatives received compensation for loss of
overtime and meal allowances. The workers concerned should be
compensated in the same way.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The PDP was accepted by the general operatives two and
half years ago. The Company's lack of competitiveness in
maintenance operations is due to the Union's refusal to accept
the PDP. The Company has a current loss estimated at
#500,000.
2. The conditions offered to the workers concerned are the
same as those offered to the general operatives. There is no
threat to the guaranteed weekly overtime for the workers.
3. It is imperative that the Union accepts the PDP if the
Maintenance Department of the Company is to survive.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that there is agreement in principle between
the parties as to the need for a Development Plan. The Court also
recognises that considerable progress was made at various stages at
conciliation.
The Union's strongly held view that another group of workers had
received extra payments resulted in the break-down at conciliation.
The Court has examined this point and is satisfied that whereas
payments were made to other workers, the same circumstances do not
apply in this case and accordingly the claim cannot be sustained.
The Court further notes that at conciliation broad agreement was
deemed possible on items (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (I) (J) (L) (M)
(O) (P) (Q) (R) (V) (W) (reference document headed "Engineering
Document" and signed P. Cooney, Factory Manager, dated 23rd
November, 1994).
The Court recommends that the Union also accepts items (H) and (N),
and that the Company delete (S).
With particular reference to (K), the Court is of the view that the
Union should also accept this proposal in the context of the
further discussions that would be necessary to finalise this
proposal.
With regard to T & U the following be implemented;
The Union agrees to operate T (a) (b) (c) and (d) and the Company
agree to a moratorium of 2 years on external appointments.
On acceptance of the above the Company agree to pay the 3% Clause 3
of P.E.S.P. from a date two years prior to date of acceptance.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
3rd March, 1995 ------------
C O'N/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR CIARAN O'NEILL, COURT SECRETARY.