FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH CO-OP SOCIETY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. (1) Amendment to Grievance & Disciplinary Procedure and taking of Lieu Days, (2) Company's restructuring programme/survival plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. Europaks Corrugated Cases is a subsidiary of Irish Co-op Society Ltd and has been manufacturing corrugated cases for over 50 years at its factory in Limerick where it employs in the region of 100 people.
The dispute before the Court concerns an amendment to the Disciplinary and Grievance procedures and the Company's Restructuring and Survival plan.
In August 2005 Management identified a number of issues which needed to be addressed immediately. These included excessively high absence rates, timekeeping issues, no written disciplinary procedures and the absence of a Company/Union agreement. Initial discussions had taken place with the Union, who represent all the general workers, on the issues of absence and timekeeping. No agreement was reached.
Further meetings took place to discuss the issues mentioned and the Company's restructuring / survival plan. The Company was suffering a downturn in sales mainly due to closures and business downturns experienced in the Company's customer base.
None of the issues could be resolved at local level and they were the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st June, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st January, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The changes proposed by the Company are vast in the our members eyes in terms of their normal working environment. Our members have accepted that changes need to be implemented, but the final implementation of these changes are worrying for our members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The road to recovery and possible survival of the Company is totally dependent on the implementation of the survival plan.
2. The Company is asking its employes, through the Union and directly with management, to place trust in the management of the Company, and engage with the solutions that will hopefully save the business and secure their employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, oral and written, made to it by the parties, the Court is seriously concerned at the failure of the parties to resolve this damaging dispute despite the best efforts of both Management and Union.
In regard to the matters put forward by the Union, the Court recommends as follows:-
Shift Change:-
The Court notes that, at the hearing, the Company was willing to agree to the Union suggestion that the extra four hours at issue be spread over the nights from Tuesday to Friday, with one extra hour being worked on each night. The Court would endorse this as a resolution of the issue.
Lieu Days:-
The Court notes that the Company has conceded the inclusion of one "emergency day". The Court recommends that, for 2007, this be increased to two "emergency days" on the basis that, should it be shown that abuse has occurred, this day may be removed by the Employer, subject to prior discussion with the Union..
Holidays:-
The Court is of the view that the formula put forward by the Company should be accepted, and so recommends, noting that the Company has agreed to consider any difficulties in personal circumstances.
Redundancies:-
The Court does not recommend any change in the agreed terms.
Work Changes:-
Given the existing level of earnings, the critical financial position of the Company, and the provisions of successive National Agreements, the Court does not recommend any increase in pay at this time other than the increases due under T2016.
The Court, noting the acceptance of the current predicament by the Union and Committee at the hearing, strongly recommends that, with the amendments set out above, the Union's members should, in the interest of job preservation, accept promptly and in full the restructuring proposals (including the Grievance and Disciplinary procedures), which in the Court's view, fully comply with S.I.146 /2000 put forward on the 5th January 2007. The Company should comply with the pay terms of "Towards 2016" from the due dates.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
1st March, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.