FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HENNIGES ELASTOMERS IRELAND GMBH (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No.15455.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is owned by Gen. Corporation Incorporated, a U.S. multi-national. It specialises in the manufacture of components for the European automotive industry and employs 320 workers.
A dispute concerning the Company's rationalisation plans was the subject of a Labour Court investigation on 3rd February, 1997. In LCR15455 which was issued on the 18th February 1997 the Court recommended as follows:
It is clear to the court that there is an acceptance by both parties that there is a need for change if the Company is to be in a position to effectively compete for markets and employment levels are to be secured. The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the parties, recommends as follows:
(1)Flexibility and Interchangeability- that the proposals of the Company for flexibility and interchangeability be implemented.
Success in the transition to flexibility and interchangeability will require the goodwill and co-operation of the employees.
Accordingly it should be emphasised to line management that, in the allocation of duties, there needs to be a realistic approach.
(2)Shift Patterns- that the parties immediately discuss changes required in shift patterns. That in these discussions the parties give consideration to
difficulties which may affect employees as a consequence of any changes proposed.
(3)Profit Sharing- that the parties discuss Company proposals for Profit Sharing. The Court notes that there will be no change to the current bonus scheme except by agreement. Further the Company have guaranteed that, in the interim, there shall be no loss of earnings subject to performance levels being maintained. The parties should seek to reach agreement on or before 30 June, 1997.
The Court recommends that the parties review developments in July 1997. In the event that the parties have any difficulties or have issues outstanding on which agreement has not been reached the Court is prepared to review progress and consider making a recommendation."
Subsequently the parties entered discussions but agreement could not be reached specifically on the issue of implementation of shift rotation. The Company sought to implement a unified shift system. The Union rejected this proposal. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th June, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 27th June, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While further discussions are needed on the issues of profit sharing/flexibility/
interchangeability the major difficulty arises from the Company's insistence on a unified shift working system being the only way forward. The workforce is totally opposed to the Company's proposal. A majority of over 80% voted against it. The change would involve major social and financial upheaval without resulting in any direct improvement in productivity and efficiency.
2. There is no operational need to alter work patterns and to continue to pursue this issue could hinder progress on the vital areas of high-performance work teams and profit sharing which are essential if the real problems of the Company are to be addressed.
3. Any move from fixed to rotating shift must be voluntary. Compensation and loss of earnings must be dealt with in the context of rotating shift.
4. Existing employees resisting rotating shifts should be red circled. All new recruits should be placed on rotating shift.
5. The Union and Management must discuss and agree any alternative options within the mixed shift pattern.
6. The Union seeks that the rotating shift issue be set aside, other than on a voluntary basis, for a period of 12 months.
7. The workers accept the need for change and improvement in overall performance and results. Discussion on high-performance work-teams - profit sharing provides the best vehicle for achieving the desired results. The Company must listen to and consider seriously taking on board other suggestions which will enhance performance in the production area. The Union is very anxious to commit all necessary resources over a four-week period aimed at producing an agreed solution.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is experiencing serious difficulties in its trading position mainly due to the lack of overall interchangeability and flexibility among the workers and the fact that there is no unified shift pattern in place.
2. The Company/Union agreement which is a binding contract deals with shift rotation,
interchangeability and flexibility (clauses 4 and 8). The Company is within its rights to
insist on its implementation.
3. The Company conducted a survey of 113 workers affected by the change and only 24 had expressed serious difficulty. The Company was amenable to try and find an accommodation for these employees.
4. The Union has put forward no alternative to the Company's proposal. The unified shift pattern is essential for the Company's survival and is already in existence in 19 other plants within the group.
5. Operational losses continue and sales compared to 1996 are reduced by 17%. The Company has lost vital contracts to eastern Europe. There are Company-wide structured efforts in place to regain quality confidence. The Company/Union agreement clearly sets out the Management's right to introduce flexibility/interchangeability and deals with the issue of shift rotation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court is concerned, given the highly competitive nature of this industry, that in the light of the present financial results, the security of the employment in the Company will be placed in jeopardy if changes necessary to increase output and quality and contain costs are not put in place as a matter of urgency.
The Court accordingly recommends that the employees put in place the shift patterns required by the Company. For their part the Company should address meaningfully the concerns of those employees who find they have difficulty conforming to the new shift pattern.
The Court notes that in the context of the above changes the employees will not suffer any loss of earnings.
The parties should immediately discuss the introduction of High performance Work Teams and Profit Sharing with a view to reaching agreement on these issues as quickly as possible.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
3rd July, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.