Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95176 Case Number: LCR14781 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH COUNTRY MEATS (EDENDERRY) (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for a pay-system based on basic and bonus.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the oral and written submission of the
parties. The Court recommends that, in the interest of good
industrial relations, the parties meet as soon as possible to
negotiate a scheme which will meet the stated aspirations of both
sides. This can take the form of an amendment to the existing
scheme or the negotiation of a new one.
If the parties fail to reach agreement within three months of the
date of this Recommendation they may return to the Court, who will
review the progress made, and then make a definitive
recommendation.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95176 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14781
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH COUNTRY MEATS (EDENDERRY)
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a pay-system based on basic and bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which has been involved in the pig-processing
industry as Master Pork since 1990, was bought by the
Avonmore Group in 1992. The claim, which is on behalf of 140
workers, is for the introduction of a pay scheme based on
basic pay plus bonus, in place of the piece-rate scheme
currently in operation. The Company rejected the claim on
the grounds that the piece-rate system, introduced in
May/June 1993, has worked satisfactorily until recently. The
Company also claim that it needs a piece-rate system to
compete both in Ireland and abroad. (In the 1990 Works
Agreement there was a commitment to introduce a bonus scheme
once production skills and productivity were established).
The dispute was investigated by the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 10th
of February, 1995, at which agreement was not reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 6th of
March, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute, in Tullamore, on the 16th of May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in clear breach of the Works Agreement
which provides for a basic pay structure plus a bonus
scheme.
2. The Union is seeking reinstatement of the agreed pay
structure plus bonus scheme as operated in all other pig
meat plants around the country.
3. The Company took advantage of a young inexperienced
workforce and low union density to introduce a very
unfair piece-rate. Repeated requests from the Union for
detailed information on the piece-rate have been
ignored.
4. Information on the industry shows that labour costs are
not the problem. The high cost of grain and the
shipping of too much product as commodity are the
reasons for the low margins.
5. The unskilled rate paid in Edenderry is only 84% of the
average. There no Pension or Sick Pay scheme in the
plant, unlike in other plants.
6. The Company's attempt to introduce specific working on
piece-rates into the Agreement clearly shows that it is
aware that it is in breach of the existing agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has made it quite clear that the original
Master Pork agreement would be adhered to with the sole
exception that a traditional bonus scheme would not be
introduced. From the very beginning of the Avonmore
takeover, employees were aware that no such system would
be introduced but that the Company would introduce a
piece-rate system.
2. In line with the intention of the Company to move
towards a piece-rate system, piece-rate was negotiated
locally, was introduced and has worked successfully for
practically two years. If there was a difficulty with
the particular system then clearly this should have been
expressed earlier and the matter processed through the
procedures.
3. The earnings of employees operating under the old
system, which was a simple basic rate of pay system,
were substantially less than the earnings under the
current piece-rate system.
4. The Union, by virtue of the fact that it has operated
the scheme for nearly two years, would appear to have
accepted it. This point is borne out by the fact that a
meeting took place between the Company and the Union,
attended by the Union's Industrial Engineer on the 28th
of July, 1994. At that meeting the Union's engineer
agreed to the introduction of the system on a trial
basis. Furthermore, at that meeting, the Union engineer
accepted that a piece-rate system, which was based on
standard working, would pose no difficulties for him or
the employees.
5. A piece-rate system is nothing new in the meat industry.
Most processors, if not already operating such a system,
are attempting to negotiate or are in the process of
negotiating the introduction of such a system.
6. The Company is under severe competition from processors
in the U.K. and Continental Europe. As a small
producer, operating on the periphery of Europe, the
Company cannot afford to be inefficient. In this regard
under no circumstances will the Company introduce a
basic plus bonus system.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the oral and written submission of the
parties. The Court recommends that, in the interest of good
industrial relations, the parties meet as soon as possible to
negotiate a scheme which will meet the stated aspirations of both
sides. This can take the form of an amendment to the existing
scheme or the negotiation of a new one.
If the parties fail to reach agreement within three months of the
date of this Recommendation they may return to the Court, who will
review the progress made, and then make a definitive
recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th May, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.