FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IO SYSTEMS - AND - CWU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Hearing arising out of LCR 20888
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to a proposed reduction in the Company's annual cost base. This issue has been before the Court previously (LCR20888 refers). The parties remain in dispute in relation to the method by which Management wish to make the required savings. Subsequent to the issuing of LCR 20888 the issues in dispute were the subject of a further conciliation conference at the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred back to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd February 2015. The following is the Court's Recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court notes that the Union has in recent times co-operated with cost containment measures that have reduced its members’ incomes. The Court notes its reluctance to accept further reductions proposed by the Company.
The Court also notes that the Company bid for and won a contract from its main customer at a price that cannot support the current cost structure of its operations. It further notes that the Company has reduced its cost base by addressing management and operational inefficiencies. However these have not been sufficient to match income and expenditure and it argues that further reductions are essential to allow the Company to become financially viable. It now proposes to move from a 12 hour to an 8 hour shift pattern to better match business requirements with attendance patterns. It further proposes to employ additional staff to meet its manpower requirements with the consequent effect of reducing overtime levels that it considers costly and excessive.
The Union is willing to co-operate with the shift changes but is seeking to protect its members earnings.
The problem has been intractable over a long period of time and has been before the Court now on three occasions. In an effort to bring the dispute to a sustainable conclusion the Court recommends as follows
•The union cooperate with the shift restructuring proposed by the Company•The Company offer and the Union accept, until the current contract expires, a shift rate of 20% and 21% respectively to apply to the new shift pattern. Thereafter the shift rates should be restored to their current levels.
•The Company, in line with established practice, should pay in two moieties to the affected staff a €1000 contract retention bonus. The 1stmoiety to be paid at the mid-point of the contract. The 2ndmoiety to be paid on the contract expiry date.
•The Company should undertake to engage with the Union and agree a wage and job security framework before it bids to renew its current contract with its major customer.
•The Company should commit to addressing all of the outstanding items listed by the Union to the Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this Recommendation. Issues outstanding at that time should be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
12th February 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.