FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UDV OPERATIONS (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Sharing of benefits
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim by the Union is for the inclusion of a period of increased efficiencies and production in the calculation of a gainsharing package. The disputed period is June to December, 1997. The Company is part of the Diaego group and is engaged in the processing and bottling of alcoholic drinks (Baileys, Smirnoff and Sheridans). It is one of 5 sites in Europe. There are more than 100 workers employed, with the majority involved in bottling the product. There are 7 bottling lines in operation.
In 1997, the parties agreed to conduct a series of pilot improvement schemes, mainly related to the need to improve the effectiveness of the bottling lines - particularly lines 4 and 5. The project was known as "Phoenix". Initially the project was to last approximately 18 months - June 1997, to December, 1998 - , and the aim was to establish a change plan in practice for 'official roll-out' in January, 1999. Part of the problem was that the Company's view was that any gainsharing should be negotiated on after January, 1999, whereas the Union believed that any benefits should be shared from day one. Details of the agreement are contained in a Company letter dated the 4th of December, 1997. As part of the agreement, the Company agreed to the early application of 2% under Partnership 2000.
In 1999, the Company made a payment of £700 gross to each worker in recognition of, the Union claims, significant productivity in the peak season for 1998 and 1999. The Union is now seeking a payment of £350 per person for the period June to December, 1997. The Company maintains that the £700 was for continuing and ongoing co-operation, particularly in the area of overtime, for the peak periods 1998/1999, and was not connected with the Phoenix project. A partnership process was established in 2000, following unrest which involved a complete withdrawal of overtime for the first 3 months of the year.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences took place on the 13th of May, and 15th of November,1999. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the labour Court on the 28th of February, 2000. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of August, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management was slow to respond to requests for negotiations from the Union, and workers lost heart in the Phoenix project. They were wary because a previous programme for World Class Manufacturing had encountered similar difficulties.
2. Clearly increased efficiencies had been established (details supplied to the Court), which represented gains to the Company. The Company has acknowledged this. It is not acceptable that increased gains to the Company should not be shared with the employees responsible for the gains.
3. The Company has already paid £700 for increased production in the peak periods for 1998/1999. Payment for the period June to December, 1997 is still due.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot concede the claim because the workers involved have not implemented the agreement. They withdrew from the project several times during its course, and the net result was that it was never completed.
2. The project was intended to bring performance of the lines and machines to an acceptable baseline level - it was not about changing work methods. This level has not been reached, so the Union cannot now seek to "share gains".
3. The £700 paid to the workers was for unprecedented production levels, particularly as a result of overtime. It was not connected to the Phoenix project.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the the parties.
The Court does not find a basis for recommending concession of the Union's claim, but recommends that the issues involved be dealt with as part of the broader negotiations being undertaken between the parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th August, 2000______________________
conChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.