FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OERLIKON WELDING (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of computer Key Pads/Zappers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of welding consumables and employs 60 workers. The dispute relates to the Company's requirement that production workers operate Key Pads and Zappers. The Union on behalf of its members claimed the application of the 2% Local Bargaining increase of Partnership 2000 in return for the workers' co-operation. Management rejected the claim. It sought that the workers should operate the Key Pads under protest pending the processing of the issue through the procedures agreement. This was rejected by the Union which claimed that this was a new work practice. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission, and a conciliation conference was held in February, 1998. Agreement was not reached. Subsequently, in March, 1998, the Company offered to pay the 2% increase to be applied to basic pay. It sought the elimination of the afternoon tea-break and a re-affirmation of adherence to procedures. The offer was rejected by the Union. A second conciliation conference was held in July, 1998 at which the Union claimed the application of the 2% increase with effect from 1st January, 1998, the increase to be calculated on both basic pay and bonus payments. The Union also sought the retention of the tea-break. This was not acceptable to the Company . Further agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 18th August, 1998. A Court hearing was held on the 1st, October, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of Key Pads and Zappers is a new work practice. It is therefore, reasonable for workers to seek favourable terms in return for their co-operation. The 2% increase should be applied from 1st January, 1998. All increases previously have been applied to both basic pay and bonus payment. The exception to this was the 2% local bargaining increase under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. All other workers in the Company received a 3% increase while the workers concerned received 2%. They felt that they were "short-changed". This was a once-off agreement only, therefore, the workers now refuse to accept terms which do not include the increase on bonus payments.
2. The Union cannot accept the elimination of the afternoon tea-break. Employees are working in a very difficult environment (noise levels etc.) and the afternoon tea-break is an important respite from this environment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company faces very severe competition in the market place from companies in mainland Europe who can manufacture and deliver the finished product at a substantially reduced cost, relative to the Company's price for the same product. It is against this background that the Company is attempting to compete, therefore, efficiencies and cost reductions are vital and it is crucial that they are achieved in order that the Company remain viable.
2. The Company has offered to pay the 2% increase on the basic rate on the understanding that the Key Pads are operated and that the afternoon tea-break is moved, (5 minutes will be appended to the lunch-break). It is essential that the Key Pads and Zappers are operated as quickly as possible.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written submissions of the parties and the verbal comments made at the hearing in support of their respective positions and recommends as follows:
(i) The company pay the 2% claimed under Clause 2 (iii) of Partnership 2000 on basic pay, this increase should also be reflected in the bonus earnings.
(ii) The workers agree to use the Key Pads and Zappers with immediate effect.
(iii) The Company's proposal to attach the 5 minute afternoon tea-break to the lunch-break be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
_____October, 1998______________________
TOD/BCCaroline Jenkinson
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.