FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TECH INDUSTRIES IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Changes in work practices.
BACKGROUND:
2. Tech Industries Ireland design and manufacture plastic closures for the cosmetic and toiletries market. It employs approximately 93 people and is a subsidiary of Tech Industries Inc. based in the U.S.A. The Company operates in a very competitive market particularly with major companies based in the UK. Eighty percent of the Company's sales are to the UK.
The Company claims that it needs to become more competitive and has identified areas where this can be achieved :-
(a) Maintaining the same prices to the market as prevailed in 1994;
(b) Achieving certification to ISO9001 and thus improve product quality and service;
(c) Developing the European (particularly the French) markets.
It states that it has been unable to avail of wider business opportunities due mainly to two impeding factors;
(1) Excessively long lead-times - 8-10 weeks compared with competitors 4-6 weeks;
(2) Lack of cost competitiveness.
The parent company in the US will not put any further investment into its Irish subsidiary until the current restrictive practices at the plant are resolved.
The Union claims that there are 4 areas of contention within the Company which need to be addressed; (1) The Compression Moulding Department; (2) Setting Duties; (3) Lining Department; (4) Claim by 3 Operators.
Despite several meetings at local level no agreement was possible between the parties.
Conciliation conferences were held on the 27th and 28th May 1997 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 22nd July, 1997
COMPRESSION MOULDING DEPARTMENT
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is prepared to increase the limit on the number of machines that an employee operates in return for a lump sum payment of £16,000 per employee.
2. The machine rate should be consolidated into the basic rate and a further payment of £4,500 should be made to each employee in respect of operating the new technology.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is prepared to offer £2,500 gross per person on a "once off" basis to "buyout" all restrictions relating to the number of machines in operation at any one time.
2. The Company is also prepared to allow employees to retain the machine money frozen at its current level and "red circled" to its current recipients.
3. Improvements in technology have resulted in the current machine limits bearing no relevance to the realities of the modern production process.
SETTING DUTIES
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company wishes to change an existing agreement and also wishes to change the job description for "Setters" which was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in 1992 - LCR13640 refers.
2. The Company's proposals would have a significant effect on the work load of members.
3. The Union is seeking the following in respect of Setting Duties ;
(a) An increase in basic pay to £310.80 per week ;
(b) A lump sum payment of £4, 000 per employee ;
(c) Compensation for loss of overtime .
4. The Company should deal with the "Setters" in a more realistic manner reflecting the value of their work and contribution to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company operates in a very competitive market. It seeks the elimination of restrictive set-up times and inflexible work practices.
2. It wants "Setters" to co-operate with all new initiatives and equipment having regard for the implications for competitiveness and the need for flexibility.
3. The Company is prepared to compensate the "Setters" in return for changing their current work practices. It is willing to award one increment on the basic pay, a lump sum of £2, 500 and to address the issue of any loss of overtime on the basis of a review of P60's after 12 months from the implementation of such changes.
LINING DEPARTMENT
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union is seeking an increase in basic pay of £80.00 per week for workers in this department.
2. The Union is opposed to the Company's proposal to implement "standard industrial relations procedures" as the current Company/Union agreement is adequate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company is not prepared to offer anything to employees in the Lining Department as they are already paid to carry out this work.
2. The Company is also seeking a new grievance procedure to reflect the industrial relations norms of the nineties.
COMPENSATION FOR 3 WORKERS "TAKEN OFF" SHIFT
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The 3 workers taken off shift must be adequately compensated for loss of earnings.
2. The compensation package offered by the Company is unacceptable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. It was necessary to reduce shift working because of a downturn in business.
2. The Company has offered a number of options to settle this claim including a redundancy package and a "buyout" proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The parties agreed before the hearing to accept that the case be heard as an arbitration.
The Court having considered all the information before it, arbitrates as follows on the issues raised:-
1.Compression Moulding
The upper limit on the machine to be removed and the Company offer of £2,500 to be increased to £5,000 gross. The machine money to be red circled to the current recipients but to be increased by pay agreement increases. The Court notes the Company statement that existing employees will not incur any loss of earnings or earnings potential.
2.Setting Duties (Setters)
In return for accepting the Company's proposal on setting up machines, the Employees involved to be paid a once off gross payment of £5,000.
3.Lining Department
That the parties immediately, use the expertise of an independent third party to assess the feasibility of this proposal and to address the issues raised by the Union.
4.Claim by 3 Operators
That the Employees involved accept one of the offers made by the Company.
Separate to the arbitration above, the Court is concerned at the apparent bad industrial relations climate in the Company and would suggest to the parties that the use of an independent body e.g. the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission might help to create a climate of trust.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
5th August, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.