FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WILLAMETTE EUROPE LTD. (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (A) Capital investment programme. (B) Achievement of parity with craftsmen.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures medium density fibreboard (MDF) for the Irish, UK and European markets. It employs 190 people of whom 109 are represented by the Union. It proposes a major capital investment programme (CIP) which it claims is necessary to streamline the production process and to upgrade the technology on Line 1 to a level equivalent to that which already exists on Line 2.
The Union states that it is seeking a 12.4% pay increase for its members similar to that given to the craftsmen. It claims that it wants to maintain pay relativity which its members always had with craftsmen.
It wants the pay parity issue dealt with first before it will negotiate on the reorganisation of the production process at the plant.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 25th May 2001, 6th June 2001 and the 19th July 2001 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd July 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 25th September 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union lodged its claim for pay parity with the craftsmen before the Company mentioned its investment plans.
2. The pay parity claim with the craftsmen has to be concluded first before the Union will engage in discussions regarding the Capital Investment Programme.
3. The parity of movement on wages has long been established through custom and practise in the Company.
4. In 1998, the craft workers were awarded a 9% increase. Following negotiations, the Union secured this 9% for its members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The increase the Union is claiming is available in the context that agreement can be reached in relation to the Capital Investment Programme.
2. The Company operates in a very competitive market. The Capital Investment Programme is essential in protecting jobs into the future.
3. The Company has committed itself to a 39 million dollar investment programme to secure its future in the competitive world of the MDF market.
4. The failure to reach agreement is putting the start-up time at risk with grave consequences for competitiveness, loss of market share and substantial financing costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court believes that the aspirations of both parties can be realised through the following process:
1.The company should agree to the payment of the 12.4% increase claimed by the Union.
2. The Union should agree to full cooperation with the introduction of the new line 1 in return for the increase referred at 1 above.
3.The parties should enter into intensive negotiations on loss of earnings, redundancy and rostering, in so far as they relate to the introduction of the new line. These negotiations should continue for a period of not more than 3 weeks from the date of acceptance of this recommendation. At the end of that period outstanding issues should be referred back to the Court.
4.The increase recommended at 1 above should be implemented on the conclusion of final agreement on all matters relating to the introduction of the new line 1.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd October, 2001______________________
LW/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.