LCR16884

SUBJECT:
1. 1. Company/Union Agreement. 2. Implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Company is located at Drogheda, Co. Louth. It manufactures heat exchanger coils used in the manufacture of air conditioning and refrigeration units. It currently employs one hundred and forty staff.

Throughout the 1990's, the Company experienced trading difficulties. In late 1997, as part of a survival package a Company/Union Agreement was signed which expired in July, 2000 and negotiations on a new agreement began. In January, 2001, the new agreement was rejected by the workforce on a number of issues. Local discussions resolved some of the issues but the following remained in dispute:

(1) Refusal by the Company to pay the special 2% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness as and from the 1st of April, 2001.

(2) A specific date for the implementation of the 39 hour week without loss of pay was not given.

(3) The banning of hot drinks on the factory floor.

The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 3rd of April, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of May, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of August, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.

The final position of the parties is as follows:

Union Claim:

(1) A definite date for the implementation of the 39 hour week without loss of pay.

(2) Hot drinks to continue to be available to staff on the factory floor.

(3) The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to be brought forward.

(4) The special 2% to be paid from the 1st of April, 2001.

(5) A time frame for negotiations on a new incentive scheme.

Company Proposals:

(1) A 40 hour week with 15 minutes paid break each day giving a 50 minute earlier finishing time on Fridays. The 39 hour week will be examined when the Company returns to profit.

(2) Hot drinks can only be availed of during official breaks.

(3) If the agreement is signed the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness will be brought forward.

(4) The special 2% will be part of the wage incentive scheme.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. Productivity has increased in the factory. The workers concerned are flexible and have co-operated with all the changes introduced by the Company.

2. The claim is justified and should be honoured by the Company.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company has made substantial losses over the years. There is a continuing need to restructure the Company.

2. It is vital for the future of the Company that its proposals are accepted by the Union.


RECOMMENDATION:

Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the dispute be resolved on the following basis:

1. The Union should now formally agree to the changes proposed in the Works Agreement referred to in the Company's letter to the Union of 24th January, 2001.


2. The pay agreement associated with Programme 2000 should be deemed to have terminated on 1st April, 2001 and the first phase of the PPF should be paid from that date. The second phase of PPF should be brought forward to 8th January, 2002, with a consequential adjustment to the commencement date of the third phase.

3. The 2% increase provided for by the adjustments to PPF agreed in December, 2000 should be applied from 1st April, 2001.

4. The parties should resume discussions immediately with a view to finalising agreement on an incentive scheme.

5. The Union should agree to the Company's proposal that the consumption of hot drinks be confined to the designated break times.

6. The 39 hour working week should be restored with effect from the termination date of PPF as it applies in this employment. If, at that time it is considered that the economic and commercial circumstances of the Company are such that the implementation of this aspect of the recommendation could put competitiveness and employment at risk, the parties should meet to discuss the situation. If satisfactory arrangements cannot be agreed the matter may be referred back to the Court.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
31st August, 2001______________________
G.B./B.R.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.