FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WOCO INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. (1) Suspensions and loss of earnings (2) Productivity.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has operated in Carrick-on-Shannon since 1976. It manufactures moulded rubber components for the European automotive industry and employs approximately 135 workers.
Following Labour Court Recommendation LCR15053 the Company and the Union began negotiations on the introduction of multi-machine operation (M.M.O.) on the 31st January, 1996.
The Company proposed to implement a productivity/pay related bonus scheme in conjunction with the implementation of M.M.O. The Company also indicated that there would be no redundancies as a result of the proposed changes.
The Union claims that it had no mandate from its members to negotiate on multi-machine operations as it was not part of LCR15053. Several meetings at local level failed to resolve the dispute.
As a result of continued financial losses the Company set the 1st July, 1997 as the date for implementation of a training programme for multi-machine operations without prior agreement with the Union. It also indicated that, because of its financial position, it would not be in a position to offer any pay increases in respect of the proposed restructuring. This was unacceptable to the Union. The Union also indicated that if the Company forced the issue through without agreement, it would take appropriate action.
On the 25th June, 1997 three employees were requested by management to carry-out training for multi-machine operations. They refused and were suspended without pay. the Union balloted their members and gave notice of industrial action to commence on the 7th July, 1997.
Conciliation conferences to resolve the dispute had been held on the 29th August, 1996, 14th October, 1996, 7th November, 1996, 26th February, 1997, 12th March, 1997, 20th May, 1997 and 7th July, 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 10th July, 1997. (Industrial action was suspended pending the Court's recommendation).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in breach of the Company/Union procedural agreement.
2. The Union wants the training programme deferred, the suspensions lifted and the loss of earnings incurred by the 3 workers made good.
3. The Union is prepared to allow members take part in the training programme but only on a voluntary basis.
4. The Union is seeking a productivity bonus scheme for the proposed changes in work practices.
5. The Union has no objection to a Joint Working Group (JWG) being established similar to that proposed at conciliation. The JWG would conduct its business without the threat of multi-machine operation being introduced without agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company/Union agreement provides for multi-machine operation.
2. All other plants within the Woco group operate in a multi-machine environment. The Company's competitors operate this system.
3. Multi-machine operation in itself will not guarantee a future for the plant. The Company has to compete with low wage economies in Eastern Europe.
4. The Company must become more competitive and reduce its costs or it will not survive.
5. The Company has sustained substantial losses over the past number of years. It cannot afford to make any additional payment for multi-machine operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is gravely concerned in the light of the information supplied by the parties that if arrangements are not put in place to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the firm the future of the Company and the security of the employment will be put in jeopardy. The Court is also aware that multi-machine operation exists in competitor firms and companies within the Group.
The Court recognising the above and having considered the views expressed by the parties makes the following recommendations:
(1) The workers should accept the need for multi-machine operation.
(2) The training for multi-machine operation should be completed as quickly as possible.
(3) Multi-machine operation should be implemented plant wide on the 1st September 1997.
(4) Concurrent with the training programme the parties should negotiate terms and conditions for multi-machine operation the negotiations to include payment, the areas to be included in multi-machine operation, arrangements to monitor the implementation of the operation and to address any difficulties that may arise.
The Court notes the Company have indicated they will endeavour to agree arrangements with regard to employees who have difficulties transferring to multi-machine operation. The discussions between the parties should include these employees.
These negotiations should be completed on or before 22 August 1997. In the event the parties are unable to reach agreement the Court will consider the issues in dispute and issue a definitive recommendation.
(5) Subject to the acceptance of the above in the exceptional circumstances of this case, the employees suspended should be reinstated without any loss of pay and any reference to the matter should be removed from their records.
At the hearing it was clear to the Court that relations between the parties left much to be desired. If the Company is to succeed and the employment is to be secured there will need to be greater co-operation and goodwill between all concerned. The Court recommends the parties discuss their relationship and seek to put in place arrangements which will develop and improve the industrial relations climate. They should seek the assistance of the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission should they consider this necessary.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
15th July, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.