FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MONAGHAN POULTRY PRODUCTS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Claim for implementation of Phase 3 of the Programme for Competitiveness and
Work (PCW).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a poultry meat producer and employs a staff of approximately 250. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union for payment of the third Phase of the PCW from the due date, i.e., the 1st of February, 1996. The Company responded that increases provided for under Clause 2 of the PCW must have due regard to the relevant economic and commercial circumstances of the Company, as stated in Clause 3 of the PCW. The Company claimed that payment of the increase would erode its competitive position and that the increase could be paid only if a range of issues was addressed. Following discussions at a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission it emerged that the Company was concerned to address a range of issues, in particular, absenteeism and flexibility regarding Saturday working at long weekends. The Union undertook to try to address the issue of absenteeism but was not prepared to consider the matter in the context of a claim for payment of the PCW. On the matter of long weekend working, at present the Company has the scope to call in employees for half days on 3 Saturdays during long weekends. It is seeking the option of bringing them in on 5 such weekends in future. This was unacceptable to the Union. Agreement was not reached between the parties at the Labour Relations Commission and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 9th of August, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th of October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers' pay and conditions of employment stand at a minimum level and compare very unfavourably with the pay and conditions of staff in the other 2 poultry producers in the area.
2. Most of the Company's difficulties are self-inflicted, through managerial overstaffing and inefficiency. The workforce has delivered total flexibility in all areas (details supplied to the Court).
3. On the issue of Saturday working, as in all other plants, there is nothing to prevent the Company operating on additional Saturdays. However, it would not be possible to have the workers give total commitment to attend, though a substantial number would possibly be available on a voluntary basis.
4. The issue of alleged absenteeism is a management problem. If there is absenteeism, it is contributed to by the Company's refusal to provide proper thermal clothing for staff working in very low temperatures. Consequently they regularly suffer a high level of colds, flu and other illnesses.
5. The low level of basic pay would make the workers' position barely tenable should the PCW payment be withheld. They would look elsewhere for employment. Unemployment benefit would be considered a viable option given the low levels of pay they currently receive.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The PCW clearly states, at Clause 3: Economic and Commercial circumstances, that the basic pay terms of the PCW "shall be negotiated through normal industrial relations machinery, due regard being paid to the economic and commercial circumstances of the particular firm, employment or industry". In attempting to achieve the necessary overhaul of the Company's cost base (in relation to the sick-pay scheme, Christmas bonus scheme, absenteeism, flexibility on bank holiday Saturdays, contracting out of remaining transport and the filleting operation in the boning room) the Company was operating legitimately within the terms of the PCW, given the critical state of its economic and commercial position
2. There is an urgent need to reduce the level of absenteeism in the Company which, in 1995, was running as high as 10%. There has been a marked reluctance on the part of the workforce to co-operate with measures designed to reduce absenteeism.
3. With the advent of Sunday trading and bank holiday Monday opening, it has become impossible for the Company to service its customers adequately, due to the loss of Monday production. In order to alleviate the problem the Company requires flexibility allowing it to operate on the other Saturdays on bank holiday weekends. The Company would try to avoid working any Saturday than the 3 already in place.
4. The Company's position has significantly worsened recently. The Company is engaged in a protracted legal dispute with its growers since May, 1994, which could have potentially devastating consequences for the operation and its employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, while noting the Company statements in relation to the potential consequences of forthcoming legal proceedings, cannot take this into consideration in making its recommendation at this time. Issues arising as a result of the outcome of the case will have to be addressed by the parties when the result is known.
In the meantime, the Court recommends that the Company pays the PCW payments as due to the Employees.
In return, the Employees to meet with the Company to agree measures to reduce absenteeism in its broadest sense. If the parties fail to agree on this issue they can refer back to the Court.
The Employees also to agree to work a minimum of 4 bank holiday weekends per year.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
27th November, 1996______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.