FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALLIED FOODS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Change to Terms and Conditions of Employment. 2 Gainsharing.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issues in dispute concern the Company's proposals in relation to changes in workers terms and conditions of employment and the Union's claim for the introduction of a gainsharing scheme. The Company is involved in the distribution of chilled frozen foodstuffs from its locations in Cork and Dublin. The claim concerns workers who are employed as general operatives and chargehands in the warehouse at the Company's Tallaght, Dublin premises. Their duties involve the breaking down of large pallets of different frozen foods and place them on special trolleys as required. There is a basic rate of €8.84 plus bonus based on the case rate picked.
Claim 1. Terms and Conditions of Employment. In September, 2001 the Company introduced new terms and conditions of employment for newly recruited staff in its Warehouse in Tallaght. Existing staff were red-circled as part of the proposal. In January, 2004 the Company reviewed its business costs and decided to align the terms and conditions for all staff in its efforts to attract business.
Local discussions and numerous conciliation conferences were held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission between 2001 and November, 2004, the date of the final conciliation conference. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th February, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 6th April, 2005.
Claim 2 Gainsharing.As part of a relocation claim in 2001 which was the subject of a Labour Court investigation and recommendation, (LCR16852 refers ), the Court recommended that ".....the parties should enter into partnerships dialogue on the issues which are of concern to both sides. This process should also be used to progress the proposals on the introduction of a gainsharing scheme and to facilitate a better understanding of how it works".Under the Company's proposals for the introduction of a gainsharing scheme that would benefit both sides the minimum hourly case rate picked at the new location would have to be increased from 80 to 98. The IPC which carried out a review of the works system within the new plant recommended that a minimum pick rate be increased to a level of 98. The Union rejected the proposal.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.
(i).Claim 1.Terms and Conditions of Employment.The Union understood that the Company's proposals for changes to workers Terms and Conditions of Employment would be dealt with through a partnership process locally between Union and Management. While the parties engaged in conciliation in September, and November, 2004 it was only on the 26th November, 2004 that the Union received correspondence with the Company's proposals and how the changes would be addressed. A further conciliation conference due to be held in December, 2004 had to be adjourned. However the Company then referred the issue to the Labour Court without exhausting the avenue of conciliation first. The Union requests the Court to recommend that in relation to this issue the Company go through the proper procedures before referring the case to a full Court Hearing.
(ii).Claim 2.Gainsharing Scheme.The Company should implement the Gainsharing Scheme as set out in LCR 16852 and introduce a scheme which will benefit both workers and the Company. The Company proposal is not acceptable as it reduces workers' bonus and is a contradiction of LCR 16852. If the Company is unable to put forward a reasonable Gainsharing Scheme it should at least forward all information requested by the Union so that it can formulate a proposal.
(iii) Any scheme should apply retrospectively to 2001 ( the date on which the move took place).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.Claim 1.Terms and Conditions of Employment.
Case Rate.The Company is seeking an increase in the minimum case rate from 80 to 98 as recommended by the IPC in conjunction with an agreement that the current rates will be reviewed in the future if, for example, when changes in work practices or technology are introduced that affect the rate at which the task of picking is performed, in order for a minimum to be revised upwards or downwards as appropriate.
Sick Pay Scheme.The existing scheme allows for workers to be paid from day one of illness on full pay extending up to six months. If workers resume before the 6th month they can potentially go again for another six months on full pay. The Company claim that the absentee levels are very high and seek to change the scheme to provide that the first three days would not be paid by the Company.
Reduction in Holidays from 26.5 to 20 days p.a.On the introduction of the 39 hour week staff involved in this claim, who are still employed in the Company, were given an additional 6.5 days holidays for continuing to work 40 hours per week. The Company seeks that workers with 26.5 days revert to 20 days, while continuing to work a 40 hour week. The Company is prepared to pay compensation to those affected.
Productivity Scheme for Fork-lift Drivers. Fork-lift Drivers have a guaranteed bonus of €4.07 per hour. The Company wishes to introduce a productivity scheme in line with the IPC Recommendations.
Productivity Scheme for Loaders.The Company wishes to introduce a scheme for Loaders that is equitable and allows them to receive payment that recognises levels of effort. As with Fork-lift Drivers this task was also examined by the IPC and the Company requires the introduction of a productivity Scheme in line with the IPC recommendations.
Reduction of Shift Premium for Evening Work from 25%to 18%. Staff employed on evening shift (5 p.m to1 a.m.) receive a premium payment of 25%. Workers employed after September, 2001 receive 18%. The Company requires all staff to receive 18%. The 25% will be maintained for shifts that start from 10 p.m. only. The Company is prepared to pay compensation of once the annual loss to the workers concerned.
Removal of Premium for working Good Friday.For historical reasons a premium payment applies to all staff who work Good Friday. The Company states that for a normal 8 hour shift on Good Friday a worker in Warehousing would receive payment for 22 hours plus bonus. The Company claims it cannot sustain this cost and want Good Friday treated as a normal work day in the future. It is prepared to pay compensation of one year's loss, based on a worker's individual average payments i.e. the equivalent amount earned on Friday 25th March, 2005.
Dress Up/ Dress/Down Procedures and Full implementation of Time Management System.
Staff are taking time out of normal working day to put on and take off personal protective equipment (PPE) for working in cold temperatures. Many employees are not ready for work when clocking in at shift commencement time and are finishing shift early to remove their PPE. The Company maintains that clocking in and out should only take place, when employees are prepared for work, i.e. wearing their PPE. The Company also seeks the implementation of the Time Management System and that it be operated by all staff in the Company.
4.Claim 2. Gainsharing Scheme. (i) Progress has not been made on this issue since it was first introduced in 2001. At this stage it is irrelevant to the Company's pay structure and a different methodology is required to deal with productivity issues (such as a buy-out).
(ii) The Company has consistently sought to negotiate on the introduction of a scheme but has been consistently frustrated by the Union whom it believes does not really wish to see a gainsharing scheme introduced as it will require minimum case rates to rise from present levels.
(iii) Changes in productivity basics are essential to create gain. It is unlikely that any level of engagement will allow agreement to be reached. The Company requests the Court to recommend that implementation of a Gainsharing Scheme be discontinued and an alternative strategy, such as a buy-out be discussed by the parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that there are serious issues in this employment relating to the capacity of the parties to conduct normal industrial relations negotiations and conclude agreements. There can be no doubt as to the need for ongoing adaptation in work practices and conditions having regard to changes in the business environment in which the Company operates. A failure of the parties to address these issues in a realistic and timely manner can only be to the detriment of the Company and its employees.
The Court would, therefore, urge the parties to approach the negotiations referred to in the recommendations which follow, in good faith and with a determination to reach agreement.
In that context and having considered the submission of the parties the Court recommends as follows:
Re-Alignment of Terms and Conditions of Employment.
It is noted that the Union is prepared to negotiate on the Company's claims for a re-alignment of terms and conditions of employment, including the terms of the bonus scheme. The Court recommends that the parties engage in an intensive process of negotiations on these issues and that such negotiations be concluded by 31st May, 2005. If final agreement is not reached at that time, outstanding issues should be referred back to the Court.
Gainsharing.
It is clear to the Court that the parties are at cross- purposes as to the concept of gainsharing. In these circumstances it will be impossible to progress this matter further until a common understanding is reached between the Union and the Company on what the process involves. However, further discussion on this matter should be deferred until agreement is reached and implemented on the re-alignment of terms and conditions, referred to above. The parties should then make a final effort to agree on the basic parameters within which a gainsharing scheme could operate. If agreement is not reached the matter may be referred to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th April, 2005______________________
todKevin Duffy
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.