FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a manufacturer of extrusion and injection blow-moulded plastic products and currently employs 250 workers in Ballyconnell, Co Cavan. The dispute concerns a claim for compensation for the introduction of a system known as Hazard Analysis Critical Controls Point (HACCP) in October, 2002. The Union is seeking a 5% pay increase.
The Company is involved in the production of direct-contact food packaging. HACCP is the common industry standard for the elimination of risks to the consumers of food at each stage of the supply chain. It involves the correct wearing of personal protective clothing, hair covering and the removal of small items of jewellery. The Union claims that the introduction of HACCP has made worse an already poor working environment, particularly in the levels of heat generated by the operation of the moulding machines. The Company has rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of September,2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of November, 2003, in Navan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of HACCP has resulted in workers having to wear mop caps pulled down over their ears, their coats are buttoned and they have to remove all jewellery. The main problem this causes is additional heat in what was already a hot environment.
2. The introduction of HACCP allows the Company to charge a higher premium for their products to their existing customer, and also allows it to attract other high-profit-margin customers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The current standard dress items have been in use in the Company since 1995. Over the years, various wage settlements have included payments to reflect the dress standard now in operation. The only change to the dress standard is the removal of certain items of jewellery.
2. The Company had no choice but to introduce HACCP as it is a requirement of the industry. Several of the Company's main customers had requested that a defined HACCP programme be put in place.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under Clause 1.5 of Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the underlying difficulty giving rise to this claim relates to the increase in temperature which occurs in the plant as a result of the production process. It appears that this can give rise to some discomfort during certain periods of the year and that this discomfort can be exacerbated by the new gowning requirement under HACCP.
The Court does not accept that this difficulty constitutes a sustainable basis for an increase in pay. Rather, in the Court's view, the parties should jointly address the problem with a view to identifying appropriate and viable measures by which the discomfort complained of could be ameliorated. The Court recommends that the parties establish a joint initiative for that purpose and that they jointly monitor the situation. The Court does not, however, recommend concession of the Union's pay claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th November, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.