FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRETORN LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (i) 2% PPF
(ii) Comparison with mill.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Portlaoise, employes 85 staff and manufacturers tennis balls. The Company has been in operation for 29 years initially as an assembling line type facility. In 1990, all manufacturing and retail and distribution were relocated to Ireland making it the primary manufacturing site. The Company is operating in highly competitive environment which has seen most tennis ball manufacturing relocating to the Far East.
1. Payment of 2% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
In January, 2001, the Company contacted the Union to discuss the application of the payment of the 2% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The Company intended to negotiate the revision at local level within the meaning of the terms specified. The Company considered concessions necessary in order to alleviate the additional costs of the revision. The Union refused to enter into negotiations concerning concessions.
2. Claim for comparison with the Mixer Mill Area.
In September, 1998, the worker applied for and was appointed to the position of Weighing Room Operator. This task principally involves the weighing of the primary raw materials for the manufacture of tennis ball core. Within a few months, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of the worker for a comparative study to be implemented with the Mixer Mill area of the product operation.
As no agreement could be reached, the Union sought referral to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 16th of July, 2001. As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, on the 17th of September, 2001. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of February, 2002, in Portlaoise.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Payment of 2% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness
3. 1. The members do not find it acceptable that they should fund the entire cost of the 2% increase through the elimination of a fifteen minute tea break.
2. The Company is not making a trading loss.
3. The workforce have always been flexible and this led to production being maintained while the worker numbers reduced substantially.
4. The workers are trailing behind others in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, therefore, the value of the additional 2% is significantly more important to them.
Claim for comparison with the Mixer Mill Area
4. 1. The Union believes that the Mill is the only comparison where the nature of the work has similarities.
2. The worker has been pursuing this comparison for a long time.
3. There has been great resistance by the Company to the exercise taking place on the basis that it is a cost-increasing claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
Payment of 2% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness
5. 1. Clause 7 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness provides a mechanism to recognise difficulties employers may have meeting the pay terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, and enables employers to claim inability to pay.
2. The Company's profitability has declined alarmingly over the last 2 years.
3. The Company has faced competition from the Far East low cost manufacturers for a number
of years.
4. Selling prices have been under downward pressure for the last 7 years.
5. The Company must at least match if not exceed the ability of the Far East to be a low cost producer.
Claim for comparison with the Mixer Mill Area
6. 1. Management have been fair and reasonable in its approach to the worker's grievances by commissioning the services of an independent consultant to carry out a work study on two occasions.
2. The Company cannot accept the Union's claim to have the worker's job compared to the mixer mill area where the requirements of the mill are of a different skill level.
3. The worker applied for and accepted the position of weighing room operator at the rate it was advertised.
4. Concession of this claim would have a knock on cost implication for other roles within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
As stated in previous Recommendations, the Court is of the view that the 2% increase is payable in return for a commitment by workers and their Unions to cooperation with ongoing change and flexibility. Furthermore, where it is claimed that payment of the increase would adversely affect competitiveness and employment, it is for the employer to make out its case to the Union in the first instance, and in the absence of agreement, to the Court.
The Court notes that the Union are prepared to have further discussions with the Company regarding the basis on which the 2% increase can be paid within the modified terms of the PPF.
The Court recommends that the parties enter into further discussions on this matter which should also take account of the current financial and commercial circumstances of the Company which, it is claimed, have deteriorated significantly since the claim was referred to the Court. It is further claimed that the position is now such that the Company may be unable to pay the remaining phases of the PPF. While this is not a matter which is before the Court in the present reference, it is one which the parties must address as a matter of urgency.
If agreement is not reached within one month of the date of this recommendation, the matter may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Grading of a Worker
In the Court's view, any issue which exists in relation to this worker's current grading should be dealt with through normal industrial relations procedures. Nonetheless, the Court considers that the Union is entitled to such advice and assistance as it considers appropriate from its industrial engineer. The Court recommends that the Company should allow such facilities as are necessary for the Union to obtain such advice.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th March, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.