FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS EUROPE LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Proposed amendment of Company/Union Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures textured yarns at its factory in Letterkenny, Co. Donegal. It currently employs seven hundred and thirty workers.
In 1995, a second plant was opened at the factory to take advantage of the increased demand in the market place. An addendum to the Company/Union agreement provided for different conditions of employment in the new plant. Plant 2 operates a fixed eight hour shift pattern, whereas the existing Plant 1 operates a rotating twelve hour shift pattern.
As the rate of pay and conditions are less for workers in Plant 2, there was a concern among the workforce that they could be transferred from Plant 1 to Plant 2. In June, 1995, the Company issued a "letter of comfort" to the Union stating that permanent employees would not be transferred from Plant 1 to Plant 2 against their wishes, and that all new employees could be required to work in either plant.
In 2001, in order to standardise the terms and conditions of all employees, the Company introduced a twelve hour shift pattern in Plant 2. Subsequently, it proposed to remove the addendum and the "letter of comfort" from the agreement. This was unacceptable to the Union.
The dispute before the Court concerns the proposed amendment to the Company/Union agreement. Local discussions could not resolve the issue . The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th of November, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of February, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's temporary requirements for Plant 2 can be supplied by the dual contract workers and volunteers from Plant 1.
2. The workers concerned regard the "letter of comfort" as part of their conditions of employment and, therefore, do not wish to have it withdrawn.
3. There is no need for the Company to remove the addendum and the "letter of comfort" from the agreement. Any attempt to do so will lead to unnecessary confrontation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There have been numerous cover problems which have impacted on efficiency in the factory.
2. The cost of operating twelve hour shifts in Plant 2 is considerable and must be balanced with the optimum level of labour flexibility.
3. The addendum and the "letter of comfort" were only agreed on the basis of the differences in terms and conditions between the two plants. There is no justifiable reason to retain the addendum and the letter, as the terms and conditions are now the same in both plants.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court's view, the reasoning behind the necessity for the introduction of the "letter of comfort" no longer exists, due to the introduction of the 12 hour shift system in Plant II. Therefore, the Court recommends that it should be removed. However, the Court is conscious of the strongly held position of some employees concerning its removal as expressed by the Union and, therefore, the Court recommends that a Union/Management review should be carried out in twelve months to ascertain whether there have been any adverse effects.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th March, 2002______________________
GB/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.