FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CHIVERS IRELAND LTD (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. 2% local bargaining element of Partnership 2000 (P2000).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is part of the Hillsdown Group, is located in Coolock, Dublin 5, and employs a staff of approximately 125. The Company is involved in the production of preserves for both the domestic, United Kingdom and other markets.
The dispute concerns the payment of the 2% pay increase under the local bargaining clause of P2000, in return for which the Company is seeking the introduction of payment by credit transfer and a reduction in the number of personal breaks. The Company sees such changes as being a normal part of ongoing change and flexibility under the terms of P2000. The Union's position is that the 2% increase is automatic and should be paid without conditions attached. On the specific changes sought by the Company, the Union's view is that they should not be considered in the context of the 2% increase but that they could be pursued through procedures.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 14th of January, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 22nd of February, 1999.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The pattern of personal breaks as currently operated is outmoded and is an inefficient work practice. The number of breaks is disruptive for production and can, particularly in respect of the provision of cover, serve to limit the Company's ability to produce. The Company proposal to eliminate 1 break per day ( 2 on the short day Friday) comes well within the definition of normal ongoing change provided for in the national agreement, and falls short of what might be expected by other companies in 1999.
2. The introduction of payment by credit transfer is essential for security, health and safety and cost reasons, in view of the possibility of an attempt being made to rob the security van that transports the money to the Company. The Company's requirements on this issue are modest and in keeping with modern industrial practice.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The 2% increase sought is an integral part of P2000 and should be conceded without conditions, as has been the case in hundreds of other employments. The notion that concession should be contingent on productivity or cost-reductions is rejected.
2. While employers are free to seek cost off-setting measures, where necessary, to meet the costs involved, there is no provision in P2000 that commits the workers to agree to such measures in order to qualify for the 2% increase.
3. The 2% increase does not operate on an "exceptional" basis as was the case with Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the 2% increase under Clause 2 (iii) of Partnership 2000 should be implemented, without precondition, from July, 1998.
As part of the Union's commitment to on-going change, under Chapter 9 (15) of Partnership 2000, the Court recommends that the parties should meet to discuss how the introduction of credit transfer can be implemented, and every effort should be made to address the fears expressed by employees in relation to its implementation consequences.
With regard to the other issue before the Court, i.e., a reduction in personal breaks, the Court takes the view that if these breaks are not interfering with production then they should not be changed. However, the difficulties associated with the taking of such breaks must be discussed and sorted out.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th March, 1999.______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.