FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CPM EUROPE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Manning level / pay claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of machined metal parts for animal feed equipment. There are 35 employed by the Company. The workers are seeking £1,000 each during 2001 in lieu of productivity, a severance package for those retiring and a commitment to a jointly agreed gainshare agreement for 2002. These matters were the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th March 2001 under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24th April 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In July 2000 members agreed to operate extra machines on the understanding that a formal gainshare/profit share agreement would be negotiated with the assistance of an agreed outside consultant.
2. In August 2000, the Company reneged on its agreement to bring in a consultant.
3. The Company deliberately mislead the workforce into believing that a properly structured and agreed gainshare/profit share agreement would be negotiated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new machines are fully automatic and run for extended periods with little or no operator intervention.
2. Set up is much easier on the new machine.
3. As a result of a fire full production was not possible for 10 months and the
Company subcontracted at a cost of several thousand pounds and made a loss for the year.
4. The Company has fully honoured the PPF.
5. In spite of not making a profit last year the Company, at Christmas, as a morale booster paid a bonus to all employees of 50% more than previous year.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties in this case.
It is clear that the company did commit to the introduction of a profit sharing scheme. The Court believes that the Company should now agree to enter into negotiations with the Union on the introduction of such a scheme. The Court further believes that these negotiations should be concluded within a three month timescale.
The Court does not recommend concession of the other two elements of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th May, 2001______________________
HMCD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.