All official European Union website addresses are in the europa.eu domain.
Download article in original language : ES9809180FES.DOC
Workers at the Miniwatt plant in Barcelona went on strike from 6-31 July 1998 in a dispute which started 18 months previously, following the company's proposal to introduce a "dual pay scale". From then on, the labour situation deteriorated. A court ruling went in favour of the workers at the end of July, but a negotiated solution to the dispute is not yet in sight.
Miniwatt is a subsidiary of the Philips group located in Barcelona. It manufactures cathode tubes for televisions, employs around 700 people and has enjoyed a healthy economic situation for several years. A dispute started at the beginning of 1997, when the management of the company announced a 60% increase in business and proposed recruiting 400 workers on far lower wages than those laid down in the company agreement - the new workers would earn 40% less than the rest of the workforce.
The workers' committee, composed of representatives of the CC.OO and UGT unions, rejected this "dual pay scale" because it discriminated against the new workers and marked the beginning of a process of dividing the workforce and worsening working conditions. The dual pay scale has been a relatively widespread practice in Spain for some time (ES9705209F). However, the proposal by the management of Miniwatt was different from the dual pay scale introduced into other companies for several reasons, including the number of new recruits (who would represent almost 40% of the workforce) and the radical wage reduction involved (they would earn 60% of the pay of the longer-serving workers). However, the main difference was the permanent nature of the proposal. In many companies, the dual scale means that new recruits earn a lower wage for a certain period, at the end of which their wages are brought into line with those of the longer-serving workers. The dual pay scale proposal at Miniwatt, however, sought to maintain the wage difference indefinitely. It consisted, in fact, in agreeing a new pay scale altogether. The new wage would be 40% lower and the longer-serving workers would continue to earn the same as before because they would be given a specific personal supplement in addition to this rate.
Once the workers' committee had rejected the proposal, the labour situation deteriorated progressively. Company management stopped negotiating with the committee and began to adopt unilateral measures. Temporary contracts were not renewed and an increasing amount of work was subcontracted to reduce labour costs. This subcontracting reportedly even reached the point of building a wall inside the factory to isolate part of the facilities and to subcontract another company to manage them. These measures led to a strong reaction from the committee, which called several demonstrations in protest.
The conflict escalated when the company announced the introduction of a new shift system to keep the factory open over the whole year to optimise the use of facilities. The new system of three shifts and four teams meant working in rotation for six consecutive days (including Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays) with two days of rest. Due to the absence of negotiation with the workers' representatives, the workers' committee initiated labour dispute proceedings requesting the nullity of this unilateral decision by the company on the grounds that it was a wrong interpretation of Article 41 of the Workers' Statute. This Article grants companies the prerogative of establishing substantial modifications to working conditions in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the company sought to introduce the new shift system without waiting for the matter to be resolved in court. This led to an indefinite strike.
The workers at Miniwatt began their strike on 6 July 1998, the day on which the new shift system was to begin. The strike received support from many quarters: trade union federations in the metalworking sector, regional union organisations, union sections in certain large companies and left-wing political parties. The workers of some subsidiary companies of the Philips group in other countries also expressed their support. The court hearing was held on 30 July 1998 and in the middle of August the court's ruling, which favoured the workers, was published. The strike ended on 31 July, but normal conditions were restored in Miniwatt only on 1 September because during the month of August the factory was closed for holidays.
The court found in favour of the workers and anulled the shift system because it contradicted the collective agreement at Miniwatt. The attitude of the company during the strike was also criticised: the Labour Inspectorate has initiated proceedings against Miniwatt for an alleged very serious labour offence committed when it replaced strikers by hiring workers from outside the company. The management of Miniwatt has accepted the court's ruling, but over the 18 months of dispute labour relations have deteriorated greatly and a negotiated outcome to the conflict is not in sight.
The workers' committee is willing to renew negotiations: its proposal consists of agreeing an increase in productivity of 2% and working on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays using "permanent discontinuous" workers whose pay is regulated by the provisions of the agreement. The company, on the other hand, still believes that one way or another a drastic reduction in labour costs is necessary in order to increase production at the factory and to ensure its future viability. In these circumstances, negotiations have not even been renewed.
The disagreement over the dual pay scale marked the beginning of the dispute at Miniwatt. The company believes that only by reducing labour costs will it be possible to guarantee the expansion and viability of the company. The workers' representatives, however, maintain that this proposal breaks the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, and opens the way towards a general deterioration in working conditions.
Introducing dual pay scales is always a cause of labour disputes. In this case, the dispute is more justified due to the nature of the proposal, which goes far deeper than in other companies. But at Miniwatt the climate deteriorated when the management of the company broke off negotiations and began to adopt unilateral measures. This was why the indefinite strike was called: the validity of the collective agreement and the workers' committee's right to negotiate had been called into question. The court found in favour of the workers, but it remains to be seen whether there will in the end be a negotiated solution to the conflict. (María Caprile, Fundación CIREM)