FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HANNONS POULTRY EXPORTING COMPANY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning payment for increased productivity.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim on behalf of 60 workers is for a 10% wage increase in respect of increased productivity arising from a speeding up of the kill-line in 1998. Management, while acknowledging the increased speed up of the line rejected the claim on the grounds that productivity has not increased by 10%, the Company's financial situation, and the claim's preclusion as cost increasing under the terms of Partnership 2000. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 3rd of November, 1998. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 7th of May, 1999. A Court hearing was held on the 12th of August, 1999, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the difficulties experienced by the Company in 1996, none of which were attributable to workers, they gave full co-operation in relation to changes in work practices and the introduction of new technology, recognising the need to accept change for the Company's survival. The Company survived and manning levels were reduced on the kill-line and in other areas of the plant. The worker afforded productivity concessions relating to multi-skilling, line speed increases and the reaching of an agreement on overtime. These concessions were given without monetary compensation. A new filleting machine operation was introduced which again led to higher levels of productivity from the workers.
2. In an effort to gauge the actual increases in production the Union's Industrial Engineering Officer examined the levels of performance on the kill-line and at the various stations. His report indicated that there was a case for an increase of approximately 5%. However, line speeds have been considerably higher than those run on the day of the Industrial Engineer's inspection (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company has benefited from the increased productivity given by workers throughout the plant, in that all areas must up their performance to keep pace with product through-put of the kill-line. The Union's claim for a 10% wage increase is totally justified in the circumstances, especially considering the low rates of pay in the Company in comparison to the industry generally. The claim is productivity related and, therefore, not cost increasing. In order to retain the workforce and ensure the continued viability of the plant the matter of pay rates must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Retrospection should apply from the date of the claim i.e. May, 1998.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company experienced major difficulties in its operation in 1996 from which it has not fully recovered and has suffered severe financial problems. Despite the difficulties the Company has honoured all of the agreements with workers on pay and conditions, in full and on time.
2. In order to maintain competitiveness in the marketplace it is vital to maintain the flexibility of being able to adjust production according to requirements and not be restricted in the operation of line speeds. These may have to be adjusted due to breakdowns or power failures - of which there have been two in the past six months. Sometimes line speeds have to be adjusted to allow temperatures in the scaled tank to rise so that birds can be plucked properly. This is an important quality issue. When line speeds are increased the number of workers on the line is also increased. Multi-skilling on the kill-line is essential and has always been a requirement in the Company.
3. The Company is experiencing significant competition in the marketplace with substantial volumes of imports from low-cost countries. The Company has lost is large Russian market while the African market is difficult at the present time. There is also a change in the EU Export Refunds policy which has affected the industry adversely.
4. In view of the problems being experienced it is essential that the flexibility currently afforded by workers is maintained. It is equally important that the Company should not have to pay for this flexibility. The Company has honoured all its commitment under the various national agreements including Partnership 2000 and the Union's claim, as it is cost increasing, is precluded under Partnership 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the submissions of the parties and the information provided at the hearing, the Court does not see any basis on which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
However, the Court does recommend that the parties enter into discussions with a view to agreeing appropriate manning levels relative to line speeds. These discussions should also address other associated issues.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd September 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.