Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD96166 Case Number: LCR15145 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TIPPERARY CRYSTAL LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Company's rationalisation proposals.
Recommendation:
3. This dispute was referred to the Court at a time when
redundancy notices had been issued. Accordingly the Court had
considerable time pressure to contend with. The Court must record
its concern at this "last minute" approach which puts the Court at
some disadvantage.
However, the Court wishes to record that at the Court's request the
Company agreed to postpone implementation of 3 Redundancy notices
due to expire on Tuesday 23rd April, 1996.
The Company have proposed an extensive package, the terms of which,
they consider, must be accepted and implemented if the Company is
to survive. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Court is
satisfied that the survival of the Company is at stake. The Court
notes that the Union for its part accepts this position as factual.
The Union in turn put forward a set of proposals which it
considered would meet the requirements of the Company in the
current situation.
The differences between the parties are the nature and extent of
the proposals and the impact they will have on the employees.
The Court in its deliberations considered the counter proposals put
forward by the Union. The Court accepts that they were put forward
in an earnest effort to help the Company through this critical
period. The effect of such proposals, while commendable in other
circumstances, were not of a type that would bring about an
immediate reduction in unit cost. This is an essential
requirement, having regard to the threat now hanging over the
continued existence of the Company and the on-going employment of
the workforce.
On this basis the Court undertook an in-depth examination of each
item of the Company's proposals and having done so makes the
following recommendations.
In making its recommendation on the various items the Court accepts
that they will be unpalatable to the workforce who are being asked
to accept a considerable drop in earnings. The Court, however, is
convinced that the proposals now being put forward are the minimum
necessary if the plant is to be turned around and the jobs of the
workers secured. The Court would expect that if the Company
becomes profitable in the future the Company and Union would review
the situation. In any event the Court urges both parties to
continuously monitor progress. This will involve the Company in
giving, freely and openly, information to the workforce.
The Company's proposals on Pay are set out in Appendix 4 of its
submission headed - Pay Roll Details - Thursday 11/4/1996. The
Court is of the view that these proposals are too severe and impact
unevenly on the workforce. The Court recommends as follows.
Payroll Proposals
TITLE NOS CHANGES *
BLOWERS SHOP:
Supervisor 1 -8% Fixed rate
Master Blower 2 -10%
Qualified Blower 4 -10% ** 85% of Master rate
Qualified ball blowers 1 -10% 75% of Master rate
Qualified bit gatherers 2 -10% 75% of Master rate
Apprentices 8 -10% 65% to 42% of Master rate,
as listed
Batch Room 1 -10% Fixed Rate
Labourer 1 No change Under £176 per week.
CUTTERS
Supervisor 1 No change Fixed rate
Qualified cutters 10 -8%
Flat cutting 1 -8%
PROCESSING
Processors 2 -5% Over £176 per week
2 No change Under £176 per week
QUALITY CONTROL
First Quality Control 3 -5% Over £176 per week
1 No Change Under £176 per week
ACID ROOM
Operator 2 -8% ***
QUALITY CONTROL
Second Quality Control 3 No change Under £176 per week
POLISHING
Polishers 1 - 5% Over £176 per week
2 No change Under £176 per week
STORES
Storepersons 1 -5% Over £176 per week
2 No change Under £176 per week
ENGRAVING
Engraver 1 -5% Over £176 per week.
See Notes Below
NOTES:
* Change - the reductions of 10%, 8% and 5% to
be phased in as half the reduction on
1st May, 96, and the second half on
1st June, 96.
** Qualified Blowers - the 4 existing qualified blowers to
be red-circled at parity with the new
master blowers rate. However, they
should not benefit by any further pay
increases until such time as their
pay rate becomes equal to 85% of the
then master blowers rate. New
entrants to the grade will be paid at
85% of the then master blowers rate.
*** Acid Room - the new automated acid plant, which
both parties agree is essential, will
radically change the nature of these
jobs and their remuneration when
installed in about 6 months time.
The pay rate introduced at that time
will reflect the relative level of
skill involved in the operation of
this plant, compared to other
processes in the factory.
No P.C.W. increases will be payable in 1996.
Overtime will not be payable in the present recovery situation.
The Court further recommends the Union accept the additional
Company requirements as listed below. (The Court is aware that
some of these proposals have already been accepted and are being
worked).
1. Production employees will receive what they earn
through the piece rate system without any fall back
guaranteed minimum;
2. The factory average is no longer to be paid when
there is no work;
3. Employees are not to leave work until the furnace
pots are fully emptied. The Court wishes to record
that the Company undertook not to abuse this
facility.
4. There is to be full flexibility. If employees are
required to work in another area of production they
will be paid the rate applying to whichever job they
are on.
5. As the Company is purchasing new technology, the
positions of Stemmer and Flat Cutter will become
redundant. The Company will make every effort to
re-deploy both of these individuals.
The Court urges both parties to accept the above recommendations.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD96166 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15145
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TIPPERARY CRYSTAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Company's rationalisation proposals.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employees seventy workers at its factory in
Ballynoran, Carrick-on-Suir, Co. Tipperary. It is
engaged in the manufacture of full lead crystal tableware
and other lead crystal products for the home and export
markets.
2. The Company has not made a profit since it commenced
trading in 1988. The Company states that its wage costs
are excessive and unsustainable.
3. On the 1st February, 1996, the Company informed the Union
that it required a reduction in its wages costs in order
to remain viable.
4. The Union was not amenable to wage cuts. It stated that
there were other alternatives of achieving what the
Company required without wage cuts. Following a number
of meetings between the parties no agreement was possible
and the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service
of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held in Carrick-on-Suir on the 14th
February, 1996. This conference was adjourned to enable
the Company provide financial information to an agreed
3rd party regarding its financial position. It was also
agreed that workers laid-off on the 22nd December, 1995
would return to work on a phased basis. A further
conciliation conference was held on the 2nd April, 1996.
No agreement was possible between the parties because the
Union deemed that the financial information provided by
the Company was unsatisfactory. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on the 12th April, 1996 under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 16th April, 1996
(Waterford) and the 18th April, 1996 (Dublin).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is opposed to wage cuts. It stated that other
options could be explored including payment of flat rates
for overtime.
2. The Union is prepared to accept non-payment of the PCW
and the non replacement of staff to assist the Company.
3. There has been no wage increases paid to Blowers and
Cutters over the past number of years. The piece rate
for Cutters has already been reduced.
4. The Union is not convinced that labour costs is the only
contributing factor to the current problem.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is in a serious financial situation and
cannot continue trading unless wage costs are reduced.
2. The Company's unit costs are too high vis-a-vis its
competitors.
3. The Company had no working capital to pay wages and
creditors. It would have gone into liquidation but for
an injection of capital from the owner's personal funds.
4. The Banks are not prepared to provide further credit to
the Company unless the proposed restructuring is
undertaken.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. This dispute was referred to the Court at a time when
redundancy notices had been issued. Accordingly the Court had
considerable time pressure to contend with. The Court must record
its concern at this "last minute" approach which puts the Court at
some disadvantage.
However, the Court wishes to record that at the Court's request the
Company agreed to postpone implementation of 3 Redundancy notices
due to expire on Tuesday 23rd April, 1996.
The Company have proposed an extensive package, the terms of which,
they consider, must be accepted and implemented if the Company is
to survive. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Court is
satisfied that the survival of the Company is at stake. The Court
notes that the Union for its part accepts this position as factual.
The Union in turn put forward a set of proposals which it
considered would meet the requirements of the Company in the
current situation.
The differences between the parties are the nature and extent of
the proposals and the impact they will have on the employees.
The Court in its deliberations considered the counter proposals put
forward by the Union. The Court accepts that they were put forward
in an earnest effort to help the Company through this critical
period. The effect of such proposals, while commendable in other
circumstances, were not of a type that would bring about an
immediate reduction in unit cost. This is an essential
requirement, having regard to the threat now hanging over the
continued existence of the Company and the on-going employment of
the workforce.
On this basis the Court undertook an in-depth examination of each
item of the Company's proposals and having done so makes the
following recommendations.
In making its recommendation on the various items the Court accepts
that they will be unpalatable to the workforce who are being asked
to accept a considerable drop in earnings. The Court, however, is
convinced that the proposals now being put forward are the minimum
necessary if the plant is to be turned around and the jobs of the
workers secured. The Court would expect that if the Company
becomes profitable in the future the Company and Union would review
the situation. In any event the Court urges both parties to
continuously monitor progress. This will involve the Company in
giving, freely and openly, information to the workforce.
The Company's proposals on Pay are set out in Appendix 4 of its
submission headed - Pay Roll Details - Thursday 11/4/1996. The
Court is of the view that these proposals are too severe and impact
unevenly on the workforce. The Court recommends as follows.
Payroll Proposals
TITLE NOS CHANGES *
BLOWERS SHOP:
Supervisor 1 -8% Fixed rate
Master Blower 2 -10%
Qualified Blower 4 -10% ** 85% of Master rate
Qualified ball blowers 1 -10% 75% of Master rate
Qualified bit gatherers 2 -10% 75% of Master rate
Apprentices 8 -10% 65% to 42% of Master
rate, as listed
Batch Room 1 -10% Fixed Rate
Labourer 1 No change Under £176 per week.
CUTTERS
Supervisor 1 No change Fixed rate
Qualified cutters 10 -8%
Flat cutting 1 -8%
PROCESSING
Processors 2 -5% Over £176 per week
2 No change Under £176 per week
QUALITY CONTROL
First Quality Control 3 -5% Over £176 per week
1 No Change Under £176 per week
ACID ROOM
Operator 2 -8% ***
QUALITY CONTROL
Second Quality Control 3 No change Under £176 per week
POLISHING
Polishers 1 - 5% Over £176 per week
2 No change Under £176 per week
STORES
Storepersons 1 -5% Over £176 per week
2 No change Under £176 per week
ENGRAVING
Engraver 1 -5% Over £176 per week.
See Notes Below
NOTES:
* Changes - the reductions of 10%, 8% and 5% to
be phased in as half the reduction on
1st May, 96, and the second half on
1st June, 96.
** Qualified Blowers - the 4 existing qualified blowers to
be red-circled at parity with the new
master blowers rate. However, they
should not benefit by any further pay
increases until such time as their
pay rate becomes equal to 85% of the
then master blowers rate. New
entrants to the grade will be paid at
85% of the then master blowers rate.
*** Acid Room - the new automated acid plant, which
both parties agree is essential, will
radically change the nature of these
jobs and their remuneration when
installed in about 6 months time.
The pay rate introduced at that time
will reflect the relative level of
skill involved in the operation of
this plant, compared to other
processes in the factory.
No P.C.W. increases will be payable in 1996.
Overtime will not be payable in the present recovery situation.
The Court further recommends the Union accept the additional
Company requirements as listed below. (The Court is aware that
some of these proposals have already been accepted and are being
worked).
1. Production employees will receive what they earn
through the piece rate system without any fall back
guaranteed minimum;
2. The factory average is no longer to be paid when
there is no work;
3. Employees are not to leave work until the furnace
pots are fully emptied. The Court wishes to record
that the Company undertook not to abuse this
facility.
4. There is to be full flexibility. If employees are
required to work in another area of production they
will be paid the rate applying to whichever job they
are on.
5. As the Company is purchasing new technology, the
positions of Stemmer and Flat Cutter will become
redundant. The Company will make every effort to
re-deploy both of these individuals.
The Court urges both parties to accept the above recommendations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th May, 1996 Evelyn Owens
L.W./U.S. -------------
Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation Should be addressed to
Mr Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.