Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86529 Case Number: LCR10734 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GERNORD GERFLEX LTD. - and - ATGWU |
Output/productivity.
Recommendation:
8. The Court is satisfied that the output per line of 565 should
be accepted.
The Court notes the Company's willingness to discuss productivity
over and above the above mentioned figure and in light of the
Union's expressed view that there has been an increase in
productivity in the last year the Court recommends that the
parties recommence discussion on this item with or without the
assistance of a third party.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86529 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10734
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10734
Parties: GERNORD GERFLEX LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Output/productivity.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of PVC floor
covering and employs seventy workers at its factory in
Carrickmacross. It commenced operations approximately sixteen
years ago.
3. There are three lines in the finishing department which convey
boxes to the dispatch area. The Company states that an agreement
in 1980 in respect of output, at which time two lines were in
operation, provided for output per line of 565 boxes per day. In
February, 1982 the third line was installed. Up to recently it
was not possible to run the three lines simultaneously at full
out-put because the boxes collided and consequently the Company
says it accepted a reduced output of 500 boxes per line when the
three lines were in operation at the same time; with reversion to
the 1980 agreement on output applying at times when only two of
the three lines were in operation, i.e. 565 boxes per line per
day. The fault which was causing the boxes to collide when the
three lines were in operation simultaneously has now been
corrected and the Company is now seeking an output of 565 boxes
per day on each of the three lines.
4. The Union contends that the agreed output is a total of 1130
boxes per day (565x2); that the operation of three lines at 565
boxes per line per day constitutes extra productivity and that the
output of 500 boxes per day on each of the three lines since 1982
was worked under protest by the workers. The Union considers that
an examination of this area; together with other areas of the
factory where it claimed there had been extra productivity arising
from the extra output in the finishing department, should be
carried out (the Irish Congress of Trade Union (ICTU) work study
officer was suggested) to determine the extent of the increased
productivity and the level of compensation.
5. As no agreement could be reached at local level the dispute
was referred, on 6th March, 1986, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 9th
April, 1986, at which no further agreement was reached.
Subsequently, the Company, on 27th May, 1986, referred the dispute
concerning output to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Union joined in the referral on 30th June,
1986, stating that the dispute concerns the refusal of the Company
to introduce a productivity agreement on bonus payment for extra
output. Due to the unavailability of the parties the Court was
unable to investigate the dispute until 17th September, 1986, in
Drogheda.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) Since 1980 the agreed output has been and still
remains 565 boxes per line per day.
(b) The Company when operating three lines did, at its
discretion, allow reduced output because of the
interference on the lines. The Company always
considered that this interference, which was the
result of a defect, to be of a short-term nature. Now
that the problem has been rectified, the Company is
insisting that the Union adhere to the agreed output.
(d) The Company is prepared to discuss increased
productivity with the Union provided such productivity
refers to output in excess of that already agreed,
i.e. 565 boxes per day in respect of each of the three
lines.
(e) In all the circumstances, the Company's position on
this claim should be upheld.
Union's arguments:
7 (i) It was agreed during discussions on the 25th wage
round that output in excess of a total of 1130 boxes
would be the subject of increased productivity
negotiations. The Union never accepted an output of
565 boxes for each of the three lines per day as now
sought by the Company. Output in excess of 1130 boxes
in the past was given under protest by the workers
concerned.
(ii) The workers have decided that negotiations on
productivity can only take place on the basis that
extra payment will be made for increased productivity
and provided an independent investigation is carried
out to measure the level of increased productivity
given. In this respect, the Union suggests that such
an investigation should be carried out by the I.C.T.U.
work study officer and if the Company so wishes by an
expert appointed by it also.
(iii) The Union does not accept a situation where only a
small number of workers in one area of the factory are
prevailed upon to increase output. There has been a
substantial increase in productivity throughput the
factory recently without any extra payment for the
work involved. Therefore, any agreement on increased
productivity would have to take into consideration the
extra productivity given by all workers in the
factory. An agreed payment for the increased
productivity which the Company is seeking would get
the full co-operation of all the workers to ensure
such productivity would be forthcoming.
(iv) In the event of the Company trying to impose the
changes in output on the workers which it is seeking,
the workers are prepared to take official industrial
action.
(v) The Union considers its dispute regarding increased
productivity was not fully dealt with at conciliation
level.
(vi) The Union considers that direct negotiations should
now take place between the parties on the question of
a productivity agreement. Should agreement not be
forthcoming, a third party should be engaged to
examine the level of productivity on the factory along
the lines already proposed by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court is satisfied that the output per line of 565 should
be accepted.
The Court notes the Company's willingness to discuss productivity
over and above the above mentioned figure and in light of the
Union's expressed view that there has been an increase in
productivity in the last year the Court recommends that the
parties recommence discussion on this item with or without the
assistance of a third party.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________________
Deputy Chairman.
10th October, 1986.
T. McC./J.C.