FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NESTLE (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Dispute concerning terms for revised production arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute, which involves workers in the production and distribution department, concerns the terms for agreement to the implementation of the Company's proposals in relation to production rationalisation (AVA/TOP proposals). These include issues such as continuous running and increased production speeds. The proposed changes will achieve greater productivity and increased efficiency. In return for co-operating with the changes the Union is claiming an alteration to the terms of the sick pay scheme, and a lump sum payment of £1,000 net per worker. The Company's offer to alter the sick pay scheme, pay a lump sum payment of £350 gross, and a once-off payment to workers to move onto Paypath was rejected by the Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held in April and May, 1997. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 13th May, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 30th June, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has co-operated in the past with rationalisation plans including redundancies. The Union accepts that change is needed for the Company to remain competitive. It is willing to accommodate changes which are reasonable. In the event of large scale cost reductions and sizeable production increases, the workers are entitled to some gain-share. The Company will achieve a 25% increase in production and cut labour costs substantially because of the workers' participation in, and co-operation with
changes. The level of savings is very significant which should allow workers to receive some share of the savings.
2. The sick pay scheme should be improved and come into effect for workers after 1 year of service. The scheme should give a minimum of 6 weeks cover.
3. The Company's lump sum offer is inadequate and should be replaced or accompanied with an ongoing payment reflected in the weekly take home pay of workers. In previous rationalisation plans a much greater lump sum payment was paid to workers.
4. The Company should continue to encourage and approach workers to accept Paypath. However it should be kept separate to this agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company faces very severe competition and change is essential to achieve greater efficiency in order that the Company maintains its market share. One of the Company's plants has laid off workers at the rate of 6 per week over the past number of weeks because of current difficulties.
2. Many of the items such as running to time on production have been tried and tested before a decision could be made as to their success or otherwise. Some have already been modified, based on experience. The Company has invested in new machinery and the redesign of production equipment which are required to continuously improve production.
3. It is inconsistent to make workers redundant on one hand, and to augment the labour cost base on the other hand. However, the Company has offered to improve the sick pay scheme as follows:
5 - 10 yrs. 4 weeks (current 2 weeks)
10 - 25 yrs. 5 weeks (current 3 weeks)
25 - 30 yrs. 6 weeks (current 4 weeks)
30 yrs. 8 weeks (current 6 weeks)
The current scheme was introduced in February, 1995 following the acceptance of a Labour Court Recommendation and the Company's offer represents a significant improvement as well as an ongoing cost increase.
4. The Company is willing to make a lump sum payment of £350 gross to each worker on the strict understanding that the Company proposals are successfully implemented.
5. The Company is involved in the handling of substantial amounts of cash weekly in order to pay 21 workers. This is a significant and wasted resource tied up in this administration, as well as being a security risk. The vast majority of the workforce are on Paypath. The Company is willing to offer a once-off payment of £70 to each worker who moves to Paypath.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all the information presented recommends as follows on the issues before it.
1.Once-Off Payment:The Company offer of £350 per person to be increased to £700 per person.
2.Sick Pay Scheme:The Court recommends that the Company proposal should be improved and discussions should take place between the parties on this issue.
3.Pay Path:While understanding the concerns expressed by the Company on the security aspects linked to this proposal the Court believes that this is best handled by the Company and the Union continuing to persuade people to change to Paypath.
In return for the above the Employees to accept and implement the AVA/TOP proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
14th July, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.