FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNILEVER BESTFOODS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Non acceptance of the Company's monetary offer by the Craft Workers for a new House Agreement, and the introduction of new ways of working.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a foods and beverages manufacturing Company formed out of the merger of Unilever and Knorr Bestfoods. The division of the Company involved in the present dispute is the Food and Beverages Business Unit. It employs a total of 336 workers of which 130 are production employees. Included in this number are 7 crafts people who are involved in the present case.
Following the merger of Unilever and Knorr Bestfoods, there was an over capacity in the Company's manufacturing facilities in Europe. A review was carried out and it was decided to reduce the number of factories in Europe from 94 to 62. It was decided to retain a manufacturing operation in Ireland provided it achieved certain efficiencies and secured the introduction of Total Production Maintenance (TPM) in the factory. In March, 2003, the Company commenced negotiations with the various groups. An agreement was reached with the general production workers in August, 2003, but not with the crafts people. The issues involved are as follows:
1.A new Company / Union comprehensive agreement
2. The introduction of an Engineering Development Plan
3. A new tea manufacturing operation on site.
4. A new training and Development Programme
The position of the parties are as follows:
PAY
Company Position :
The Company will introduce a phased increase on basic pay as follows
On agreement 5%
On successful completion of 1st up-skilling Module 5%
On successful completion of the remaining (5) modules 1% each
Unions' Position:
On agreement 10%
On successful completion of 1st up-skilling module 5%
On successful completion of the remaining modules 1% each
CALL-OUT
Company Position:
On call rate of €64 paid each week a person is on call, (1 recipient per week )
Unions' Position
On call rate equivalent to 8½ hours of basic pay
SERVICE HOLIDAYS
Company Proposal:
One additional day to be added to the basic leave bringing it to 22 days per annum. Three additional service days - one each after 5, 10, and 15 years respectively
Unions' position
The existing 5 service days should continue to apply.
The Company was also seeking two voluntary redundancies as part of an overall agreement.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliations conferences but the parties did not reach
agreement. It was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th of May, 2004, in accordance with
section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Both parties agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The changes proposed by the Company are major, not modest as the Company claims. The Unions' claim is not excessive and they are aware that the Company has paid more to other groups for similar changes.
2. The Unions' position on the 3 points are as follows:
Pay: The 5% being sought is not unreasonable for the type of organisational change, training and certification proposed.
Stand-by for call out:8½ hours is the minimum paid for a worker to be available 7 days per week while on stand by.
Service holidays:The Unions do not support the proposed reduction from 5 days to 3 days.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has reached agreement with every other group except the craft group. Failure to resolve the present dispute will lead to the gradual closure of the Food Manufacturing operation and eventually lead to a loss of jobs.
2. The proposals are modest and are the minimum that is essential if the factory is to have a future.
3. The monetary offer, along with Sustaining Progress, will deliver a wage increase of 22.87%
4. If the Unions' claims were conceded it would undoubtedly cause the Company's agreement with SIPTU to unravel
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court is submitted under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The parties concerned in this dispute have requested the Court to investigate the issues and have undertaken to accept the recommendation of the Court.
It is accepted by both sides that the issues before the Court concern the proposed changes put forward by the Company concerning the following:
-Company/Union Agreement
-Engineering Development Plan
-New Tea Manufacturing Operation, and
-Training Development Programme
In return for these changes, the Unions seek an increase in the Company's monetary offer to craft workers, a standby payment of eight and a half hours payment, and service holidays to remain unaltered.
The Court has investigated all aspects of this claim. In return for immediate acceptance of the four areas of change mentioned above, plus the clarifications given in appendix 9 of the Company's submission, the Court recommends as follows:-
Increase in Pay
On acceptance of the House Agreement 5%
On successful completion of 1st up- skilling module 5%
On successful completion of the remaining modules 1.5% each
Stand by Payment
The stand by payment should be increased to €80.00 per seven day week.
Service Leave
The Company proposed to redcircle those who are currently in receipt of five extra days service leave under the old system. "Redcircling" in this context means that those employees who currently have in excess of 20 years' service and consequently have 26 days' annual leave, should continue to hold this entitlement, (the Court understands that there are two craftsmen with this entitlement ). All other craftsmen will be entitled to the new annual leave arrangement - 22 days' basic leave, one extra day after 5 years, two after 10 years and three after 15 years' service. The Court recommends that the Unions should accept the Company's proposal.
The Court so recommends .
The Court notes the Company's letter to the Unions dated 28th November, 2003, which sought two voluntary redundancies as part of the overall package (1 electrician and 1 fitter). This letter included a deadline date of Friday 19th December, 2003. No volunteers came forth.
At the hearing, the Company stated that the voluntary redundancy package is still available and will remain available until the numbers reduce by two craftworkers, either by voluntary redundancy or by natural wastage.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st July 2004______________________
CON/PMDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.