FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH COUNTRY MEATS - ROOSKEY (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1) Improvements in pension scheme (2) Bonus in packing area.
BACKGROUND:
2. Irish Country meats is a pig processing and cooked canned meats plant located in Rooskey, County Roscommon. It employs approximately 500 people and is part of the Avonmore Waterford Group.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim for (1) the inclusion of standard bonus in pay for pension purposes and (2) the payment of the average boning hall bonus to workers employed in the packing area. Local level negotiations failed to resolve the issues and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Three conciliation conferences took place but agreement could not be reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of May, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Galway on the 7th of October, 1990. The first date suitable to both parties.
Improvements in pension scheme
The scheme which was established in 1982 provides for up to 40/60 of pensionable pay, subject to the standard abatement for state pension. Under the terms of the scheme, pensionable pay is defined as the annual rate of basic pay. The Union is seeking the inclusion of the standard bonus in pay for pensionable purposes. The Company's position is that the claim is cost increasing and prohibited under the PCW and Partnership 2000 agreements.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The scheme is designed to give members with full service two thirds of pensionable salary on retirement. It fails to meet this objective due to the exclusion of the bonus from pension calculations.
2. It is a condition of the workers' employment that they operate at 100 B.S.I. In the circumstances it is the Union's contention that the bonus forms part of basic pay and should be included in pension calculations.
3. The Labour Court in the past has recommended that where allowances form part of basic pay they should be included for pension purposes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Concession of the Union's claim would result in a major change to the terms of the scheme and would be prohibitive in term of cost, etc. The implications for the pension fund as it now stands would be detrimental.
2. The Company has had to significantly augment the fund in order to cope with the demands of the scheme. If the terms of the scheme should change the implications for funding would be immense.
3. The scheme is not significantly out of line with comparable employments and, therefore, is cost increasing and prohibited under the terms of the PCW and Partnership 2000 agreements.
Bonus in packing area
The Union's claim is on behalf of 35 workers employed in the packing area for their bonus payments to be based on the average bonus of workers in the boning hall. Workers in the packing area are paid a bonus based on the standard 100 performance of workers employed in the boning hall. The Union argues that this figure was set when the maximum performance in this area was restricted to 100 B.S.I. and that now this level is significantly exceeded.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Prior to standards being adjusted and re-timed in 1989, the workers concerned were paid the average boning hall bonus.
2. All areas of the boning hall are producing in excess of 100 and up to 110 B.S.I. Skilled boners employed by the Company on a contract basis, are producing at a speed up to 130 B.S.I. Workers in the packing area, receive bonus based on 100 B.S.I.
3. It is common practice in the industry generally, to pay workers employed in service areas, average bonus.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The packers are paid bonus based on 100 B.S.I. performance for all hours worked without the implementation of any labour standards or measurement within the department. In this respect they are unusual within the plant. They are paid the basic rate for the job plus one third bonus.
2. Within the boning hall area there is a mixture of direct employee boners and contract boners.They often perform above the standard of 100 B.S.I. , if they perform at 110 or 115 B.S.I. that is what they get paid. The packers are seeking the average bonus which applies despite the fact that the operations are different.
3. The packing area packs a wide range of meat products to a given specification at the rate that product is produced. Hygiene and quality factors dictate that all perishable products must be processed, packed and refrigerated as quickly as possible. The packing area was designed to allow product to be packed as it arises. This means that there is very little provision for "work-in-progress", i.e. it should be designed so that there is very little build-up or overload.
4. In October, 1997, the Company attempted to introduce a bonus scheme based on standards for the first time within the packing area. During a running-in period, the vast majority of operators exceeded the standards, except for one small minority.
5. When the scheme was fully applied, there was a lack of co-operation from some of the workers, e.g. a deliberate go-slow with extended rest breaks. This made the system inoperable. It led to the refusal of the staff to accept any alteration to the status quo. The position has continued and is totally unsatisfactory.
6. Recently, the Company reviewed the whole operation and has new proposals to put to the Union and the workforce in relation to a standard bonus scheme in the department. In the last few days, it has started trials and would expect to have the scheme up and running in full consultation with the wrokforce and shop stewards in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends as follows on the two issues in dispute:-
1.Pension scheme
The Court having considered the information supplied does not find that this scheme is substantially out of line with comparable companies.
2.Boners in packaging area
The Court recommends that the parties meet to discuss the Company scheme for the packaging area, with a view to introducing a suitable scheme for the packaging area employees.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th October, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.