FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAIRYGOLD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Introduction of 48 hour working week in Mallow.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Society is a large multi-purpose co-operative based in Munster, which evolved following the merger of Mitchelstown and Ballyclough Co-operatives in 1990. It employs in excess of 3,000 people. The current dispute involves approximately 110 employees who work in the Dairy Division at Mallow.
Discussions between the parties commenced in 1998 on the issues of harmonisation and on compliance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The issues were the subject of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and of Labour Court recommendation LCR16001. Harmonisation issues were agreed under an independent chairman in 1999. Discussions on the implementation of the Act then commenced and the Society retained the services of the independent chairman to develop proposals for a new operating system.
The Union did not accept the proposals as presented and a Focus Group consisting of management and employee representatives was set up under the chairmanship of the independent facilitator. A final set of proposals were rejected by the employees on the 4th of August 2000. The dispute was the subject of further conciliation conferences and of numerous meetings at local level. As agreement was not possible, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of February 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Cork on the 11th of April, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has insisted that its proposals are the only ones which can be introduced to comply with the legislation, to maintain earnings as much as practicable and to ensure that current operating costs are not exceeded. The employees' views have been ignored.
2. There are 28 groups of workers involved. The Company's proposal to inter-link these groups is a major barrier to negotiating a settlement. The Company should put forward proposals on the same basis as in Mitchelstown, where individual groups received proposals that did not require concessions from other groups.
3. The mechanism being proposed by the Company to maintain existing levels of earnings is unacceptable. Some employees will be required to work on Saturdays and Sundays, even where the production process requirements do not necessitate it. The inclusion of twelve hour rotas is also inappropriate.
4. The legislation was introduced on the grounds of Health and Safety and to give employees a better quality of life. The Company's proposals cannot be viewed as improving the opportunities for workers to spend some quality time with their families.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Society wishes to comply with all appropriate legislation and has invested very substantial resources in management time, operator time and ninety days of external facilitation in an effort to find consensus.
2. Although the Society had no legal obligation to do so, it provided a mechanism whereby 80% of employees could enjoy the benefits of substantially reduced working hours, while earning more than they currently do.
3. A well established compensation formula is in place to offset any loss of earnings for the remaining 20% of employees. Six per cent of them face losses of less than £1,000 (1269.74 Euros), eight per cent face losses of less than £2,000 (2539.48 Euros) and the remaining six per cent, who worked well above 56 hours per week for all of 1999, face losses in excess of £2,000 (2539.48 Euros).
4. The Society has demonstrated openness and fairness through the provision of comparative details from the Mitchelstown arrangements. It has given all employees a copy of their individual rota with a fact sheet detailing the changes in productivity required, together with personal details of current and projected earnings. It has shown a willingness to try to accommodate workers on a section-by-section basis where practicable. The Society wishes to put in place a sensible system of working which will ensure the viability of the operation into the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to all the circumstances in this case, the Court is concerned to have it brought to its attention that the Company, on behalf of a large number of employees, are in breach of the terms of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and are continuing to do so. Therefore, the Court urges the parties to bring about implementation of the Act as soon as possible.
Having considered all aspects of the dispute, the Court is satisfied that substantial time and effort have been made, by both parties endeavouring to reach agreement on working arrangements, which would comply with the terms of the 1997 Act. The Court is satisfied that in general terms the proposals put forward by the Company would form the basis of achieving the aspirations of both parties, i.e. (a) reduce working hours so as to comply with the legal requirements and (b) maintain existing earnings in as much as that is practicable, while also maintaining site costs.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the proposals put forward by the Company should be implemented on a trial basis for a period of twelve months, during which time any anomalies which occur should be referred to the independent facilitator, whose services were used previously, while the system is in operation.
Prior to implementation, the Company should communicate with each section again, to explain in detail the impact of the proposals for each individual in that section.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th April, 2001______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.