Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95527 Case Number: LCR15061 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS (EUROPE) LTD - and - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Terms and Conditions for new plant.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Company/Union agreement was
freely negotiated and agreed between the parties. The Court was
informed at the hearing that this agreement expires in August,
1996. The Court upholds the Unions' position with regard to this
agreement.
However, the Court is mindful of the Company's expressed need to
alter some of the clauses of this agreement and, accordingly,
recommends that in the intervening period discussions on these
items should commence.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95527 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15061
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS (EUROPE) LTD
and
TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Terms and Conditions for new plant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of textured polyester
yarn and employs 650 workers in its plant in Letterkenny, Co.
Donegal. In order to retain its position as a leading polyester
producer, the Company invested in a second production facility
('Plant 2') on the same site as the existing plant. The Company
has proposed a number of changes in the existing terms and
conditions for workers, with a view to operating the new facility
cost-effectively. The proposed changes were accepted by the union
representing general workers, but have been rejected by the craft
unions on behalf of 40 or so craftspersons. The main areas of
dispute concern the introduction of 8-hour rather than 12-hour
shifts, and fixed-shifts rather than rotating shifts. The craft
unions claim that these issues are already covered by agreement
between the parties and indicated that they were not prepared to
amend the agreement. They further stated that they have already
agreed a deal on flexibility between crafts, part of which allowed
for cover of the new plant by existing craftsmen.
A Company proposal that none of the existing craftsmen would be
forced to work the new system, but that some new staff would be
recruited and integrated into existing numbers was also rejected.
The Unions wish to have the new plant covered by the existing
staff, with the present shift patterns.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference, under the
auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was
not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the
14th of September, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out is
investigation, in Donegal, on the 6th of December, 1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In a situation where the Company is fighting for economic
survival, it is unacceptable that the craft unions are
refusing to sit down to discuss an issue that is
fundamental to the Company's long term future.
2. 'World Class' manufacturing principles dictate that the
Company must change, and continue to change, to meet the
demand of the marketplace. This includes working
patterns as well as means and methods of work.
3. The Company has given a commitment to the craft unions
that none of their members will be forced to transfer
permanently to Plant 2, on new working arrangements,
against their wishes.
4. It is not acceptable to have two groups working side by
side on different working patterns.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has sought to 'split the shop', by demanding
that a second shop steward be elected, having no
jurisdiction in the existing plant.
2. The Company has made proposals concerning the 'banking' of
hours, meal breaks, and the introduction of the 'paypath'
system of payment. These are unacceptable to the Unions.
3. The proposed abolition of shift premiums in the new
plant, to be replaced with annual shift allowances is
unacceptable. It would be absurd to have two different
systems of payment operating for the same workforce.
Since technicians may move between plants, the absurdity
of this proposal is self-evident.
4. The Company has proposed a radical change in overtime
payments. This is also unacceptable as are the proposed
arrangements regarding holidays.
5. There is a single maintenance workforce in the Company,
which is covered by a single agreement, with
responsibility for both plants. This workforce is
capable of servicing both plants without its numbers
being augmented, due mainly to flexibility already
conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Company/Union agreement was
freely negotiated and agreed between the parties. The Court was
informed at the hearing that this agreement expires in August,
1996. The Court upholds the Unions' position with regard to this
agreement.
However, the Court is mindful of the Company's expressed need to
alter some of the clauses of this agreement and, accordingly,
recommends that in the intervening period discussions on these
items should commence.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th January, 1996 Evelyn Owens
M.K./U.S. ----------------------
Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR MICHAEL KEEGAN, COURT SECRETARY.