FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PEERLESS RUGS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Implementation of change.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures bathroom rugs and employes 80 workers at its plant at Athy, Co. Kildare Following a number of rationalisation plans, the Company was purchased by Slumberdown Enterprises in 1997. In February, 1999 the Company engaged the services of an external consultant to examine productivity and work practices at the plant. The consultant's report made a number of recommendations. The main areas requiring revision were identified as the bonus scheme, improvements in housekeeping and health and safety issues and the removal of a number of anomalies in the wage structure. The report was considered by the workers but was rejected for the following reasons:-
(1) A number of workers have been employed in the Company for up to 25 years and have gone through many increased productivity changes in the past and feel that the changes proposed now are just too much for them and they would not be able to cope. They would be willing to take a reasonable redundancy settlement and leave. The Company has stated that it does not require any redundancies.
(2) They do not feel they should have to work harder for the same or less earnings.
The Company then agreed to have the proposals examined by the Union's industrial engineer. His report was published in November, 1999. However, no agreement was reached on this document. The Company stated that in its opinion the report broadly corresponded to that of its own consultant and confirmed this in writing to the Union on 24th November, 1999. In this letter, the Company sought agreement and acceptance of the proposals. However, the workers declined to enter into negotiations on their implementation . The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 11th February, 2000. No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 28th February, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 30th March, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union did suggest a trial of the new proposals with a compensatory lead in payment (as suggested by its industrial engineer). The proposal was rejected by Management.
2. There has been a history of mistrust and very bad industrial relations in Peerless Rugs over many years. About three years ago the Advisory Section of the Labour Relations Commission did a Report on Industrial Relations Practices. This Report did help improve matters in the short term. Since the take-over of Peerless Rugs by Slumberdown, and because of long periods of lay off and short time being worked and a substantial decrease in employment in the Company, the morale of the workforce is not good. This has adversely affected the industrial relations climate.
3. To resolve this difficult dispute the Union proposes the negotiation of a straight buy out with a lump sum being paid to all employees for a trial period of the new proposals. The Company should enter into negotiations with employees who cannot operate the new system with a view to making them redundant with a reasonable package. The Union is not opposed to change provided that the changes which occur are reasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Both the Union's industrial engineer and the Company's own strategic plan identify low levels of productivity and the need for change.
2. The proposals for change are specific and relate to two areas in particular, namely, revision of the bonus scheme and the removal of pay anomalies.
3. Should productivity levels improve, the proposals increase earnings potential for employees.
4. The Company has already indicated that it is prepared to enter into discussions to put in place a mechanism to ensure no individual suffers a swift or severe deterioration in earnings ability.
5. The refusal of the workers to enter into substantive discussions on this area is contrary to the strategic objectives of the Company as identified by both the Union's engineer and its own. It is contrary to the terms of Partnership 2000 which clearly identifies the imperatives of normal ongoing change and competitiveness to ensure reduction in unemployment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the management confidence that the new proposals will result in increased earnings for the employees.
The Court taking this into account and having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties,recommends that the Company proposals be operated for 13 weeks in order to assess the actual effect on employee earnings.
The situation to be reviewed at the end of this period.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
4th April, 2000______________________
T O'D/U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.