FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KINGSPAN LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from LCR19617.
BACKGROUND:
2. The hearing before the Court concerns issues arising from LCR19617 which issued following a labour Court hearing in August 2009. Labour Court Recommendation 19617 recommended that'both parties re-engage honestly and earnestly with a focus on solving what is a problem for both parties including disclosure of financial information.'The problem at issue was and is the Company's Survival Plan and also the National Wage Agreement.
Following the issuing of LCR 19617 three conciliation conferences took place under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Apart from issues which the Union had previously said it would consider (manning levels on the line, overtime after 39 hours, no extra hours for double shifts and monthly direct debits), the Union conceeded to reduce the premia for 3-shift and 4-shift working, (however, it did not conceed to the level of reductions proposed by the Company). The Union would not consider any of the other items on the Company's list.
As agreement was not reached at the conciliation conferences the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th October 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th December, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union contends that the Company, prior to every meeting, put obstacles in the way and had therefore no intention of negotiating the site plan.
2.At the last Labour Court hearing the Chairperson instructed both parties that they would have to compromise on their original requests and advised them to negotiate on the 'Site Rescue Plan'.
3. The Union maintains that it has moved on 6 out of the 10 points of the plan and that the Company has not moved an inch.
4. The Union is still committed to the survival of the plantand firmly believes that the restructuring alone since 2007 and the reduction of 200 jobs has substantially reduced the Company's labour costs and competitiveness.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company is asking the Labour Court to recommend implementation of the survival plan. Three of the elements set out in the plan have no financial impact on the current workforce. In particular the introduction of a new salary scale does not directly affect any employee of the Company.
2.The critical aspects of the Survival Plan for Kingscourt are those that provide an immediate and sustained reduction in the unit cost of production, and provide opportunities to increase production without the consequent increase in unit cost that currently pertains.
3.The payment of 11% flexibreak to the panel line operators is unique in the business. It is a major factor in the drift in the labour cost of production between the Kingscourt plant and the Holywell plant and critical to achieving the targets under the Survival Plan.
4.The Company has communicated with all employees on the extent of the crisis facing the business. A plan has been outlined for discussion which offers opportunities for the business to reposition itself within the group. At all times Management is striving to make Kingscourt the site of choice for production.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue was referred back to the Court following Labour Court Recommendation No: 19617, which recommended as follows: -
- The Court has carefully considered the comprehensive submissions and appendices supplied by the parties.
The Court is not satisfied that an adequate level of meaningful discussion has taken place on the Company proposals for a site survival plan. Given the very serious situation existing, the Court recommends that the parties re-engage honestly and earnestly with a focus on solving what is a problem for both parties including disclosure of relevant financial information. Such discussions should be completed within 8 weeks of the date of this recommendation and should be overseen by the Conciliation Service of the LRC. Any residual issues may be referred back to the Court at that time.
The Court makes no recommendation at this time on the question of the pay terms of "Towards 2016".
As the matter was not resolved following these discussions it was referred back by both parties. On the basis of the submissions made the Court is fully satisfied that significant cost reduction measures are necessary so as to restore competitiveness and to maintain employment. The Company submitted proposals to achieve that objective (“Site Rescue Plan”as set out in Appendix 9 of its submission to the Court).
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the proposals should be accepted subject to the modifications recommended hereunder and should be implemented by 18th January 2010: -
No 2. Reduce Shift Premiums
2 shift premium Time + 16.66%
3 shift premium Time + 20.00%
4 shift premium Time + 25.00%
Section D
The Court further recommends that a new section should be added to the Plan to allow for a review to take place in August 2011 in the light of the prevailing economic and trading circumstances at that time, to determine appropriate conditions of employment for the continued viable operation of the Company’s Kingscourt plant.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st December, 2009______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.