FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DAKOTA PACKAGING - AND - GRAPHICAL PAPER & MEDIA UNION (GPMU) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for payment under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF)
BACKGROUND:
2. Dakota Packaging Ltd produces high quality cartons for the Pharmaceutical and Health Care Industries for over 50 years. The number of personnel employed in the factory is 173 and they are represented by 4 Unions, GPMU, IPG, SIPTU No. 16 and SIPTU WWB.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for retrospective payment of the 4% final phase of the PPF, the 2% and the 1% lump sum due under the revised terms of the PPF for its 14 members employed by the Company.
As local discussions failed to resolve the issue the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. Agreement was not reached. On the 22th October 2002 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th March 2003. The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. A ballot of GPMU members rejected the Company's final offer on new flexibility arrangements. De-manning (Point 3 on the ballot paper) the most contentious issue was not considered as normal ongoing change and flexibility by the members.
2. Subsequent efforts by the Union to secure the 4% final phase of the PPF also failed because the Company refused to attend a reconvened meeting at the Labour Relations Commission. The Company resigned from the Irish Printing Federation (IPF).
3. 11 GPMU members in managerial, supervisory, overseas and apprentice's positions are paid the increases.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company's position is that only the 14 GPMU members which represents less than 10% of the total workforce of 173, have not agreed any flexible arrangements within the context of the PPF. This means that the Company cannot complete the full loop of reciprocity work arrangements with members of the other unions to obtain the full benefit of flexible working arrangements.
2. The Company has been able to successfully complete flexibility arrangements with the 3 other Unions (IPG, SIPTU No16, and SIPTU WWB). In addition 7 GPMU members have accepted the management's flexibility proposals. All these members have received payment of all phases of the PPF.
3. If the GPMU agree to the flexibility of labour in other manufacturing departments together with replicating the same crewing levels on the 4 Colour 604 Press as currently exists on the Komori 6 Colour Press, the Company will immediately commence payment of the PPF supplementary phases.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submission of both parties. This case was initially referred to the Labour Relations Commission under Section 26 of the 1990 Act and is now before the Court under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 a condition of which is that the Union accept to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court is concerned at this development and is of the view that further efforts should have been made to process the claim through the normal industrial relations channel.
The Union indicated to the Court that in return for concession of the claim, a set of proposals on flexibility measures dated 20th May 2002 (Appendix 1 of the Union submission) was rejected by their members due to the inclusion of a requirement to de-man the 4 Colour 604 machine.
The Company expressed their need to have agreement on all elements of the proposed flexible working arrangements in order to ensure full reciprocity with the other Unions who have accepted similar terms, (since November 2001 in one case and September 2002 in two cases).
The Court heard arguments from the Union on their fears concerning the viability of operating the 4 Colour 604 machine with a reduced manning level.
The Court recommends that to ally their anxieties the parties should agree to carry out an assessment exercise by an industrial engineer on the manning requirements of the machine. The Court recommends that both sides accept the outcome of the industrial engineer's report on the matter.
In return for acceptance of the outcome of the industrial engineer's report in advance and for acceptance of all other flexibility measures as provided for in the 20th May 2002 set of proposals, the Court recommends that the 4% final phase of PPF increase should be paid with retrospective effect to its due date, and the 2% and 1% lump sum due under the revised terms of the PPF should be paid with retrospective effect to April 2002. Retrospection to be paid in three phases, within the next 12 months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th_March, 2003______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Carmel McManus, Court Secretary.