FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK PLASTICS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. BSI Standard.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns difficulties which have arisen around the implementation of an agreed BSI Standard scheme. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th May, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th May, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers have consistently sought to operate agreed standards.
2 The Company has, on several occasions, decided to breach agreements made with the Workers.
3 The Company should restore agreed standards until changes are agreed with the Workers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Workers continue to operate a false ceiling on the Company's productivity.
2 The Company's attempts to deal with this matter have been deliberately frustrated over several years.
3. The Workers must implement in full agreements which have been paid for in full.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Company’s referral to the Court whereby it seeks implementation of agreements made on BSI standards. The Company submitted that there is an erosion of productivity due to a false ceiling on productivity being operated by the Workers and the agreed BSI standards are not being achieved.
The Union on the other hand stated that the Company had unilaterally breached the BSI standards agreement when it changed the parameters for setting those standards.
The Court notes that this issue has been the subject of protracted discussions since 2004 and except for a period between July 2007 and May 2008 it has not been operated successfully. The issue has been the subject of a number of conciliation conferences at the Labour Relations Commission and the subject of two Labour Court Recommendation, in 2004 and 2007.
In 2004 the Labour Court recommended as follows on a claim concerning the Company’s proposed revised production bonus to reflect new manning levels:
- “… the Court is convinced that they [proposals on manning levels] represent the outer limit of what could be regarded as fair and reasonable. In all the circumstances, the Court cannot see any basis upon which it could recommend that these proposals be further improved. Furthermore, having regard to the conclusions of the industrial engineers who examined the question, the Court recommends that the proposed manning levels be accepted. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the proposals put forward by the IRO and dated 16th April, 2004, be accepted in final settlement of the dispute.”
In 2007 the Union referred a claim to the Labour Court claiming that the scheme was not operating in line with proposals previously agreed between the parties and the Court recommended as follows:
- “It is clear to the Court that serious issues exist in relation to the terms and the operation of the bonus scheme. It is apparent that the Union and the Company are not ad idem on the original terms agreed for the operation of the scheme and it appears that workers operating within the scheme do not have a full understanding of how performances are calculated and bonus results produced.
The Court notes that the Union's Industrial Engineer prepared a report on the scheme on 28th September 2005. It appears that the matters raised in that report have not been fully addressed in the interim.
The Court recommends that the parties should have immediate discussions, involving Industrial Engineers on each side, to address the matters raised in the Union's report of September 2005 and other relevant issues concerning the operation of the scheme. In these discussions the parties should have full regard to the need to operate the scheme in a fair and transparent fashion within the original terms agreed…”
The Union submitted to the Court that communication difficulties still exist between the parties over the operation of the scheme, there is a mistrust and a lack of confidence in the scheme, particularly where there is no obvious reward for extra productivity input.
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that at this point there is a necessity for real engagement on the operation of the scheme. The Court recommends that the Industrial Engineers already involved in this scheme, Mr. Malcom Eadie appointed by the Company and Mr. John McCarthy appointed by the Union, should reengage with a view to reviewing the scheme for the period from January 2009 to date. Following this review the parties with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission should discuss and agree the implementation of BSI Standards with a view to optimising the benefits for all concerned. An essential component of these discussions should be the introduction of measures to improve communications between the parties in relation to the operation (output and reward) of the bonus scheme. In addition, the parties should with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission examine ways and means of enhancing the conduct of industrial relations in general within the Company.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th May, 2011______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.