FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001, AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004 PARTIES : N.N. EUROBALL IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Referral under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures and supplies high precision bearing components consisting of balls, rollers, sealers and retainers. It has a number of sister companies in the U.S., Italy, Netherlands and Germany. The Company began production in Ireland in 1997. The Union claims that in June/July 2003, it was approached by a significant number of workers requesting Union membership. It presently represents 38 shop floor workers. The Union wrote to the Company on the 24th of September, 2003, requesting a meeting a meeting to address the concerns of the workers.
Broadly, the issues in dispute are as follows:
Pay (including bonus and cross training issues).
Overtime and weekend work
Sick Leave Scheme.
Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure incorporating individual representation
The Union claims that the then Plant Manager stated in October, 2003, that he did not intend working through a Union. The Union refereed the issues in dispute to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) requesting an urgent meeting. The Company replied to the LRC in February 2004, stating that it would not be attending a conciliation conference . The Union wrote to the Advisory Services of the LRC in March and May 2004, again seeking to arrange a meeting. A meeting took place on the 10th of June, 2004. (During this period of correspondence, the Company established an Employee Forum). As the parties could not reach agreement, the Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 13th of July, 2004, in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th July 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1(a) Pay for the workers in the plant ranges from €342.80 per week to €377.33. The Union has carried out a number of comparisons in related industries in the Kilkenny area and found that rates of pay are much higher e.g. from €361.19 per week to €485.00 per week.
1(b) An existing Company bonus has never delivered a payment for employees.
1(c) The Union is seeking financial recognition for the workers concerned in line with the level of cross training of each individual employee.
2. Overtime and Weekend Work: The issue in dispute relates to the compulsory nature of overtime. Workers have complained on numerous occasions that they have been compelled to do overtime despite having already worked overtime on any particular week. Some have stated that they have been threatened with the loss of their employment if they refuse overtime.
3. There are serious deficiencies in the current Sick Pay Scheme which renders it of little benefit to the employees (details supplied to the Court).
4. The Union is seeking a Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure which conforms with the Code of Practice issued under Statutory Instrument (S.I.) 146 of 2000). The Company appears to have changed its policy in recent years in regard to representation at appeal hearings. A contract of employment in 2000 referred to employees being"accompanied by a fellow employee or other representative at the appeal hearing". A similar contract in 2003 made no reference to "other representative".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believes that the pay rates for the workers compare favourably with comparable organisations in the Kilkenny region. The Company has paid all elements of the National Wage Agreements on time. It could not absorb any increase above those that have already occurred.
Overtime:The Company needs to react to its customers as swiftly as possible. This can mean having to schedule extra production at very short notice but the Company strives to give as much notice as possible.
The Company is currently working on the area of cross-training. Five employees have already been made team leaders.
2. The Company already has a Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure in place - Fair Hearing Procedure. It is willing to update these policies in accordance with S.I 146 of 2000.
3. The current Sick Pay Scheme covers 5 days' leave in any 12 months for 1-2 years' of service, and up to 30 days' leave in any 12 months for 4 years' + service.
4. Among benefits enjoyed by employees are a shift premium of 23% for a three shift cycle over 5 days, health insurance, long-term disability cover, pension and life assurance, various bonuses and annual leave of 26 days. The Company also supplied a list of other benefits.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004, (the Acts). Both parties indicated to the Court that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the Acts were fulfilled in this case, and that the dispute was properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
This dispute has been referred to the Court following the failure of the parties to reach agreement in relation to the matters at issue at the Labour Relations Commission under the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. 76 of 2004).
Section 5(2) of the Act provides that a recommendation made by the Court shall not provide for arrangements for collective bargaining. Subject only to that restriction, the Court is required to give its opinion on the matter under investigation and, where appropriate, its view as to the action which should be taken, having regard to the terms and conditions of employment, in the employment concerned.
Utilising the provisions of S.I. 76 of 2004, the Union submitted a list of claims to the Labour Relations Commission. The issues referred to the Court under section 2(1) of the Acts are: -
(a) pay, including Bonus and Cross Training Issues
(b)overtime and weekend work
(c)sick leave scheme
(d)grievance and disciplinary procedures
The following are the recommendations of the Court: -
Rates of Pay:
The Union submitted to the Court that the rates of pay were out of line in comparison to related industries in the local area, and quoted figures. It sought a basic pay increase of 15% to bring pay rates in line with comparable employments in the area.
The Company provided information in regard to rates of pay for production operators, maintenance fitters and setters. It maintained that these rates compare favourably to similar sized manufacturing companies in the area and nationally.
Having considered all the evidence before it, the Court recommends as follows: -
Having reviewed the information, the Court is satisfied that the rates of pay applicable in this Company are not out of line. The Court notes that phase one of Sustaining Progress (SP) (ii) is due to take effect from 1st July, 2004. Therefore, the Court does not recommend an increase in the rates of pay as claimed by the Union.
Bonus
The Union maintains that the existing bonus scheme has never delivered a payment. The Company states that the key performance indicators are on target and that employees will receive a bonus of approximately €2,000 in 2004.
Having considered all the evidence before it, the Court recommends as follows:
-
The Court notes that the bonus scheme has only recently been introduced and is being developed, and that employees will be kept informed on a regular basis with regard to performance and likely outcome to year end.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the bonus scheme as outlined by the Company should be accepted by the workers as a means of achieving a reasonable bonus scheme.
Cross Training
The Union is seeking financial recognition for cross training i.e. for acquiring new skills. The Company’s position is that it is currently considering ways to reward employees for up-skilling.
Having considered all the evidence before it, the Court recommends as follows: -
The Court recommends that the Company should continue to examine the concept of rewarding up-skilling, and that this exercise should be completed by the end of 2004.
Overtime and Weekend Work
The Union has a difficulty with the compulsory nature of overtime. It will accept that the Company can expect employees to do a reasonable amount of overtime, however, it requires the employer to cease the compulsory aspects of overtime and weekend work.
The Company stated that it has attempted to give as much notice as possible to employees who will be required to attend for overtime and has attempted to give one month’s notice whenever possible. It always looks for volunteers to fulfil overtime requirements.
Having considered all the evidence before it, the Court recommends as follows: -
The Court is of the view that it is reasonable of the Company to expect employees to work a reasonable amount of overtime. The Court notes the Company's assertion that employees will not be subject to disciplinary action where personal circumstances prevent them from volunteering for overtime.
Sick Leave Scheme
The Union has a difficulty with the Company’s requirement to have an employee ‘personally’ inform management when they are out sick. It sought to have sick pay benefits applicable from the time an employee commences in employment; it sought the cessation of the policy of non-payment of sick pay benefit where employee had 4 days' uncertified absence in previous 12 months, and it sought an improvement in the level of sick pay benefit. It also sought a change to the policy of less than 4 hours worked in one day being deemed to be a full day of uncertified absence.
The Company holds the view that the terms of its sick pay scheme compare favourable with comparable employments.
Having considered all the evidence before it, the Court recommends as follows: -
The Court recommends that the sick pay scheme should be amended to commence with 30 working days' sick pay benefit after one year's continuous service instead of after the 4 years which currently applies. The requirement to "personally notify" should be amended to "notify" the supervisor when the employee is not available for reasons of illness. The Court recommends that the Company should re-examine (1) the rule with regard to less than 4 hours' attendance which is currently deemed to be a full day of uncertified absence, and (2) the 4 days' uncertified absence condition.
Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures
The Union sought the incorporation of the right to individual representation by a Trade Union in the Company’s grievance and disciplinary procedures.
The Company has indicated to the Court that it is willing to update its policies in accordance with S.I. No. 146 of 2000.
Having considered all the evidence before it, the Court recommends as follows: -
The employer should put in place a disciplinary and grievance procedure which conforms to the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No 146 of 2000). Consistent with the code, the Company procedure should provide for Trade Union representation in processing individual grievances and disciplinary matters where an employee wishes to avail of such representation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
6th August, 2004______________________
CO'N/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.