FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WILLIAMETTE 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. Re-hearing arising from LCR16919.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute was before the Court on the 25th September, 2001. In its Recommendation LCR16919, which was issued on the 2nd October, 2001 the Court recommended as follows:-
"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."
The current dispute involves issues such as Loss of Earnings; Selection for Redundancy; Cap on Severance Payments; and Supplementary Time Off. The Company states that the proposed restructuring and reorganisation of work practices is necessary in order to keep pace with the competition. It is a market which is extremely competitive. The Company claims that as part of the reorganisation that it is necessary to move from a 4 shift cycle to a 5 shift cycle.
The Union argues that the Company has failed to reach agreement on a number of important issues which need to be urgently addressed.
A conciliation conference took place on the 31st January, 2002 but no final agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th February, 2002 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 14th February, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has failed to address the workers' concern in relation to an agreed package revolving around redundancy, loss of earnings, supplementary time off, and the capping of the
redundancy package.
2. The Company's proposal to eliminate " supplementary time off" would mean that workers now on a 5 shift cycle would lose 4.5 days a year which they use as annual leave.
3. The Union cannot accept that redundancy payments be capped at €90,000. This would mitigate against workers with long service.
4. The proposed introduction of a 5 shift rota system would result in workers owing the company a substantial amount of time each year which is not acceptable to the union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company needs to streamline its production process to allow it remain competitive.
2. The capital investment programme was formally announced in March, 2001 following which the Company met with all employees, made a formal presentation to SIPTU, provided
full documentation and held local discussions with the union on the implications of the programme.
3. The delay in the restructuring programme has serious implications for the Company with grave consequences for competitiveness, loss of market share and substantial additional costs.
4. The Company reached a productivity agreement with SIPTU in December, 2001 and believe that its proposals relating to the outstanding issues have been fair and equitable and ask the Court
to recognise them as such.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is acutely aware of the urgent need to bring finality to what have become protracted and difficult negotiations on a programme of restructuring and work re-organisation necessary to secure the future viability of the company's plant and the employment which it provides.
The Court makes the following recommendations in a final attempt to resolve the current dispute. The recommendations are made on the understanding that they, together with other proposals already put forward, including a move to five cycle shift patterns, will be put to a ballot of the Union members as a composite package in full and final settlement of all issues relating to the Capital Investment Programme.
In relation to each of the four items before it the Court recommends as follows:
LOSS OF EARNINGS:
Loss of earnings should be calculated on the basis of the formula proposed but on the basis of 2 times the loss of each individual.
SEVERANCE:
It is recommended that selection should be on the basis of seniority.
CAP ON SEVERANCE PAYMENTS:
The cap should be €95,000
SUPPLEMENTARY TIME OFF:
The Court notes that this is in effect a claim for an additional 4.5 days annual leave. The Court does not recommend concession of this aspect of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th February, 2002______________________
LW/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.