FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PNY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (a) 2nd Phase PPF (b) Extra 2% PPF (c) Supervisors doing operators' work (d) Redundancy terms (e) Union representation.
BACKGROUND:
2. PNY Technologies Ireland Limited commenced operations on the 1st of July, 2000. Seventy workers transferred to the Company from NEC Semiconductors Ireland Limited following the acquisition by PNY Technologies of the Memory Module section of NEC Semiconductors Ireland Limited.
The Union has submitted a claim in relation to a number of issues as outlined above. During the course of the hearing it was established that item (a) and (d) were no longer an issue.
Extra 2% under amended P.P.F.
The Union is seeking the 2% as promised for under the terms of the amended Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (P.P.F.).
The Company claims that it will pay the 2% when the Company/Union agreement is signed. The Union wants the 2% paid prior to discussing the agreement.
Supervisors doing operators' work
The Union does not accept that supervisors should be doing operators work as it effects the employment and earning opportunities for both permanent and casual employees.
The Company claims that operators have no problem with supervisors helping out, and welcome the fact that supervisors will work alongside them.
Union representation
The Union is seeking to increase the number of shop stewards from two to four. It claims that because of the shift system that two shop stewards were inadequate.
The Company argues that the present number of shop stewards is more than adequate to deal with the number of staff concerned.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 23rd of May, 2001, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd of July, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th of September, 2001.
Extra 2% under amended P.P.F.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has not claimed an inability to pay the special 2% increase. It should, therefore, be paid immediately without any strings attached.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company will pay the 2% if agreement can be reached on changes to the Company/Union agreement, particularly with regard to grievance and disciplinary procedures and appraisal reviews.
2. Clause 1 of the pay agreement commits the parties to full and ongoing cooperation with change, flexibility and to increasing productivity.
Supervisors doing operators work
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It is not acceptable that supervisors should be performing operators work given the effects of work shortage situations, employment and earning opportunities for both permanent and casual employees.
2. The Union is seeking to engage with the Company to reach an agreed understanding which would reflect "Best Practice" in this particular area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. It is normal practice during staggered breaks and at times when manpower is low, for supervisors to help run processes.
2. There is no risk to jobs or job creation due to this practice. There is no agreement in place with the Union indicating that supervisors should not run processes.
3. Flexibility at all levels in the organisation is essential for the operation of the Company's business.
Union representation
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union wants the present compliment of shop stewards increased to cater for both the 12 hour shift and the 8 hour shift.
2. Because of the shift system, 2 shop stewards are inadequate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The current level of Union representation is adequate to deal with forty-five employees.
2. The Union could consider appointing one shop steward on the 8 hour shift and one on the 12 hour shift for improved coverage.
RECOMMENDATION:
A number of issues were referred to the Court in this case. It was agreed by both parties that the issue of payment of the second phase of the PPF was no longer an issue at the Court as the Company has paid the increases due with retrospection to the due date. Similarly the issue of redundancy terms was no longer an issue before the Court as the Union accepted the Company's assurances given at the Court on this issue. The remaining issues for recommendation by the Court include:-
Additional 2% under the amended PPF
Both management and the Union agree that the 2% should be paid. The Court recommends payment of the 2% and the parties should meet to finalise adjustments to the Company/Union agreement. This process should be completed within a four-week period. The Court notes the Union agreement that changes are needed, which are appropriate to the new smaller Company.
Supervisors Doing Operators Work
The Union indicated to the Court that they could accept the Company's wording which was included in the Company's submission, if an undertaking is given by the Company that others are not deprived of this work where they are available. Both parties indicated that this could be included in the new revised Company/Union agreement. The Court recommends that this clause should be amended to reflect these concerns.
Union Representation
The Court considers that the final target arrangement should be one shop steward on 12 hour shift, and one on the 8 hour shift. In the meantime, while two shop stewards continue on the 12 hour shift, a representative should be appointed from the 8 hour rotating shifts to liaise with the permanent shop stewards.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd October, 2001______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.