Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87481 Case Number: LCR11379 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LEO LABORATORIES - and - AEU;ICTU |
Claim by the Company for the introduction of a maintenance management system.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the new system proposed by management
should be introduced as soon as possible. There is a divergence
of views between the parties on the question as to whether the
implementation of the system will affect significantly the work
content of the claimants. Accordingly the Court recommends that
the impact of the new system on the work practices should be
assessed over a period of six months, following which the parties
should discuss the position further with, if necessary, the
assistance of an Officer of the Court with a view to resolving any
difficulties which may be then outstanding.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87481 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11379
CC86757 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11379
PARTIES: LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
Subject:
1. Claim by the Company for the introduction of a maintenance
management system.
Background:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Leo Pharmaceutical Products of
Copenhagen, and has been established in Ireland since 1958. It is
Ireland's largest manufacturer and exporter of finished
pharmaceuticals, currently employing 350 staff. In 1984, the
Company purchased a computerised maintenance management system,
designed to increase the effectiveness of maintenance management
by improving planning, costing, control and recording, thus
reducing plant downtime and increasing plant efficiency. During
the latter half of 1984 and in 1985, the Company attempted to
introduce the system under the 24th and 25th pay agreements.
However, the Union refused to implement the system without special
payment because the craftsmen would be required to carry out extra
duties,
including detailing all work done, commenting and reporting on the
state of the equipment, submitting proposals for its improvement
and controlling the engineering stores and spare parts.
3. At a meeting on 8th April, 1986, the Company again sought
implementation of the system as part of on-going co-operation and
flexibility contained in the Company/Union 25th round pay
agreement. The Union again refused and indicated that in the
light of the changes in work practices and the improvement in
productivity expected from the introduction of the system, it was
referring the matter to the Advisory Service of the Irish Congress
of Trade Unions before making a decision. The Company for its
part indicated that it was referring the matter to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court as per agreed procedures.
4. At a conciliation conference on 12th June, 1987, the Union
suggested consolidation of the bonus payment into the basic rate
in exchange for agreement to operate the system. The bonus is 25%
of basic wages. This was rejected by the Company. The Union then
proposed that the present productivity of the craftsmen be
measured and compared to the productivity levels after 3 months
operation of the system. The craftsmen would operate the system
for the trial period provided the Company gave an undertaking to
negotiate on any increased productivity. The Company also
rejected this proposal. As agreement could not be reached the
issue was referred to the Labour Court, on 17th June, 1987, for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
23rd July, 1987.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) The pharmaceutical industry is required by regulatory
bodies to operate production, maintenance and quality
systems on the basis of accountability and
traceability. The requirement and practice that
Company employees sign for completed work is therefore
normal operating procedure in the industry. The
Company needs to implement the system in order to
comply with the stringent regulatory requirements in
order to secure continued approval to manufacture and
export to foreign countries.
(ii) Co-operation with change, new development, plant and
equipment has been achieved throughout the Company
without special payments to any specific group. The
Company's policy is to ensure excellent pay and
conditions in return for full on-going co-operation
and flexibility contained in its agreements with
unions. This co-operation is essential in a highly
competitive and rapidly changing high technology
market. To this end the craftsmens' pay is amongst
the highest in the industry.
(iii) The proposed system's effect on craftsmen is minimal
and merely brings their operating procedures into line
with normal operating procedures in the Company.
(iv) Any special payment to the craftsmen would have a
detrimental effect on the excellent industrial
relations procedures which have been achieved in
respect of ongoing co-operation. It would create a
climate of restrictive practices, incremental payments
for changes and result in claims from other groups for
the operation of other systems which have been and are
being introduced on a routine basis.
(v) The Company needs to implement the system in order to
compete with competitors who already operate
sophisticated management maintenance systems. The
current manual/verbal system is totally inadequate and
obsolescent. A formal hand-back procedure is required
to comply with the safety requirements of the
Industrial Inspector of the Department of Labour.
Union's arguments:
6. (a) In addition to working to a planned maintenance
schedule, instead of the current 'fire brigade'
system, the craftsmen will be required to detail all
work done, including extra work, to comment and report
on the state of the equipment and to submit proposals
for its improvement. In addition, they will be
required to complete requisitions for spare parts.
All this is in stark contrast to the current situation
where craftsmen are deeply involved in the production
process, keeping the lines up and running.
(b) The Company do not deny that there will be
productivity gains. They have stated that it will
'improve costing and budgetary control in the
Engineering Department' and 'reduce plant downtime and
increase plant efficiency'. The Union has never
desired more than a system to measure the increased
efficiency by allowing the procedures on a trial basis
and then negotiating on the results.
(c) Throughout this matter the Union has had only one aim,
to establish if the craftsmen were facilitating in
achieving higher productivity gains for the Company.
The Company, while willing to meet the Union, refused
to negotiate on the substance of the disagreement.
The Company would make no offer and refused to measure
the effects of the change, saying these effects will
be negligible, when in fact they will be substantial.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the new system proposed by management
should be introduced as soon as possible. There is a divergence
of views between the parties on the question as to whether the
implementation of the system will affect significantly the work
content of the claimants. Accordingly the Court recommends that
the impact of the new system on the work practices should be
assessed over a period of six months, following which the parties
should discuss the position further with, if necessary, the
assistance of an Officer of the Court with a view to resolving any
difficulties which may be then outstanding.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st August, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman