Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95525 Case Number: LCR14949 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ORMOND PRINTERS (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU |
(1) Establishment of a new operation (2) Change in conditions
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties.
Taking into account that a major concern of the employees in
relation to ongoing employment at Reilly's Bridge was addressed at
the hearing by the Company statement to the Court that it did not
envisage redundancy requirement in the foreseeable future, the
Court makes the following recommendations:-
1. The Company proposals as outlined in letter of 1/9/95 be
accepted by the employees, minor items of concern to be
discussed by the parties.
2. The Company to reinstate the redundancy offer outlined in its
"draft document" of 29/6/95, for those wishing to leave the
Company, subject to an agreed maximum number of people being
facilitated.
3. Company to accept Union's position that involvement of the
claimants in "setting up and operation of Starbinders" should
remain an aspiration for both parties, bearing in mind that
another union is involved.
4. The Company to endeavour to identify areas of development for
the claimants.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95525 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14949
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ORMOND PRINTERS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU)
SUBJECT:
(1) Establishment of a new operation
(2) Change in conditions
BACKGROUND:
The Company is involved in the manufacture of technical
documentation for the computer software industry. It was
acquired in 1987 by the present management and has developed
from a printing company into a multi-service based data
management company. It employs 124 workers, 30 of whom are
involved in the dispute. The Company is located at Reilly's
Bridge, Dublin 7.
In 1993, the Company secured a new site in Airways Industrial
Estate (Airways) to develop a new distribution centre. The
Company is offering additional services to its customers,
such as management of their inventory, shipping products to
their end customers and the use of new technology. Airways
is a separate entity to the Company.
At the time of purchasing the new site in Airways, the
Company employed members of the Printing Trades Branch (PTB.)
of SIPTU. In December, 1994, one of the Company's customers
approached the Company to see if it could not only print and
finish manuals, but also supply a completed documentation box
kit to the customer's end users abroad. The customer
requested that the Company assemble some products in Airways
during the Christmas period on its behalf. The Company
maintains that supporting the customer at this time was to
lead to business on the level of #1 million per annum to the
Company. Eight PTB members and two managers from the Company
were involved in the work over the Christmas period. The
work was done in a temporary assembly area in Airways.
The main issue in the dispute is that the Union claims that
the work being done by the PTB workers in Airways is proper
to the grade of Journeypersons, who are members of the
Womens Workers Branch (WWB) of SIPTU. The Company claims
that members of the WWB carried out unofficial stoppages in
early 1995 to protest against the work being moved to
Airways.
A meeting was held on 13th April, 1995, between members of
the PTB, the WWB and the Company. The Company outlined the
changes that were needed if it was to remain competitive
(details supplied to the Court). More local level meetings
took place in May, 1995, at which the Company sought, and was
given, guarantees from the WWB that no further unofficial
action would take place.
In June, 1995, the Union wrote to the Company with details of
its claim which included (1) an agreed number of WWB workers
allocated to Airways, (2) 10% pay increase on basic pay for
agreement on flexibility, (3) WWB workers to set up and
operate the starbinder machinery (4) and a severance claim
(details supplied to the Court). Items (2), (3) and (4)
referred to workers in Reilly's Bridge.
The Company made an offer on 29th June, 1995, which WWB
officials stated they would be recommending for acceptance.
At the same time the Company commenced negotiations with the
PTB. The WWB ballot took place on 4th August, 1995, and was
rejected by the members. The Company issued two weeks'
notice to all temporary members of the WWB. On 18th August,
1995, the Company transferred shrink-wrapping equipment to
Airways. The Company made a final offer on 1st September,
1995 (details supplied to the Court).
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences took place on 24th August, 1995, and
12th September, 1995, but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was then referred to the Labour Court on 14th
September, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1), Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on
4th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company set up the Airways facility without discussing
the move with the workers concerned. The members of the PTB
who worked in Airways were temporary staff with less service
than the workers in WWB. The workers recognise the need for
change, but such change should be subject to negotiation and
agreement. The Company negotiated an agreement with the PTB
workers without consulting the WWB members. This agreement
involved work which was proper to Journeypersons.
2. The fact that Airways is a separate entity should not
preclude WWB members from working there. The WWB workers
feel that Airways is going to be developed and staffed at
their expense.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company had to restructure its operations to meet
changing customer requirements. This mainly involved the
move to Airways, which was a specific part of a deal with one
customer. A series of unofficial stoppages by WWB workers
caused considerable delay to Company production. This led to
a lack of confidence in the customer, which in turn led to a
#500,000 loss to the Company over a six month period.
2. The Company made every effort to achieve agreement with both
branches of SIPTU. Due to the intransigence of the WWB
officials, this was not possible. Agreement with the PTB
workers was reached within one week. The Company made a
number of goodwill gestures to the Union during negotiation
(details supplied to the Court). The current prospect of
short-time work is mainly the result of the WWB's refusal to
remove restrictive practices between its bindery department
and the PTB. This involves PTB members being "allowed" to
perform WWB duties or overtime but being restricted from
doing so in normal working hours. The Company does not
envisage redundancies in the forseeable future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties.
Taking into account that a major concern of the employees in
relation to ongoing employment at Reilly's Bridge was addressed at
the hearing by the Company statement to the Court that it did not
envisage redundancy requirement in the foreseeable future, the
Court makes the following recommendations:-
1. The Company proposals as outlined in letter of 1/9/95 be
accepted by the employees, minor items of concern to be
discussed by the parties.
2. The Company to reinstate the redundancy offer outlined in its
"draft document" of 29/6/95, for those wishing to leave the
Company, subject to an agreed maximum number of people being
facilitated.
3. Company to accept Union's position that involvement of the
claimants in "setting up and operation of Starbinders" should
remain an aspiration for both parties, bearing in mind that
another union is involved.
4. The Company to endeavour to identify areas of development for
the claimants.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th October, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.