Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95320 Case Number: LCR15053 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WOCO INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS LTD (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Arrears of payment under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that:-
(a) the Company agree to pay the retrospection due under the
P.C.W;
(b) the amounts due be offset against performance related
payments already made;
(c) in the event of the performance related payments
exceeding the arrears due, the Company agree to allow
higher payment to stay subject to realistic negotiations
as at (d);
(d) the parties initiate negotiations on the introduction of
a Productivity/Pay Related Bonus Scheme.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95320 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15053
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: WOCO INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS LTD
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Arrears of payment under the Programme for Competitiveness and
Work (PCW).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufacturers moulded rubber components for supply
to the European automotive industry. It is based in
Carrick-on-Shannon and employs 120 workers. Following the issue of
Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR14452 in May, 1994, the Company
undertook to pay the first phase of the PCW from the 1st of July,
1994. In a subsequent memo, the Company stated that it would pay
the 1st 6 months of phase 1 of the PCW (i.e., 1st January, 1994 to
30th June, 1994) after the end of September, 1994, subject to
co-operation and the maintenance of productivity levels. At the
end of November, 1994, the Company indicated that it would not
pay the arrears of the PCW but proposed to implement a form of
productivity scheme based on the period September to December, as
follows:-
PAYMENT
95% to 100% PRODUCTIVITY £100
86% to 94% PRODUCTIVITY £60
< 86% PRODUCTIVITY £35.
3. The Union believed the productivity bonus to be in lieu of a
Christmas bonus first paid in 1993, and not a substitute for the
arrears of PCW. The Company was not prepared to pay the latter as,
it claims, the workers had been unco-operative during the period in
question. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission at which
agreement was not reached. It was referred to the Labour Court, on
the 23rd of May, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute, in Cavan, on the 5th of December, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Normal levels of productivity were maintained and even
improved over the period between the memo of 16th June
and the due date of payment of the arrears, i.e., the end
of September.
2. Industrial relations during this period were normal for
this Company.
3. The Company proposal was rejected on the grounds that the
retrospection was due, in full, to all workers.
4. The Bonus Scheme would be particularly unfair because, in
order to calculate a productivity bonus, overall
productivity could only be averaged for those not on the
production side of the Company.
5. The level of payment was not negotiable as it was
specifically 2% from 1st January, to 30th June, 1994.
6. The Company claims that the workers had at times been
unco-operative is rejected. Any delays that occurred
were due to mechanical faults.
7. It was understood by the workers that the productivity
bonus was to take the place of the Christmas bonus paid
in 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In accordance with LCR14452, the Company was under no
obligation to pay Phase 1 of the PCW. The employees were
paid in advance of the terms of the Recommendation and
the retrospection was conditional on certain obligations
being met.
2. The Company was not satisfied that the employees
co-operated regarding productivity and other matters and,
accordingly, did not pay the arrears of the PCW as
originally proposed.
3. The employees were fully aware of the problems the
Company was experiencing. The reasons behind the
survival plan were known to all. Yet, when the employees
were asked for their co-operation in order to help place
the Company on a secure footing, this was not
forthcoming.
4. The productivity payments made to the employees actually
gave them higher earnings in many cases than they would
have received under the PCW and provided the Company with
the co-operation levels needed to ensure the viability of
the plant.
5. In 1993, the staff received a Christmas bonus of £35.
Management were not satisfied with the subsequent
productivity and co-operation and, accordingly, the
Christmas bonus was not paid in 1994.
6. The productivity payment scheme introduced by the Company
in 1994 was a reasonable arrangement for both sides.
Levels of productivity increased and additional monies
were paid accordingly
7. Clause 3 of the PCW provides that the pay increases
should be negotiated through normal industrial relations
machinery, due regard being had to the economic and
commercial circumstances of the particular firm. The
agreement reached with the employees in June, 1994 had to
take account of both the commercial circumstances and the
levels of co-operation within the plant. Neither
agreement can be read in isolation.
8. The Company believes that the payments, made relative to
performance, were a measure to deal with both the
problems of low productivity and the arrears of any
outstanding money. Its obligations under Phase 1 of the
PCW have been honoured.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that:-
(a) the Company agree to pay the retrospection due under the
P.C.W;
(b) the amounts due be offset against performance related
payments already made;
(c) in the event of the performance related payments
exceeding the arrears due, the Company agree to allow
higher payment to stay subject to realistic negotiations
as at (d);
(d) the parties initiate negotiations on the introduction of
a Productivity/Pay Related Bonus Scheme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
4th January, 1996 ------------
M.K./U.S. Chairman
Note:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.