Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86941 Case Number: LCR10928 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROADSTONE LTD - and - FWUI;ITGWU |
Proposed tile plant re-arrangement in Clondalkin tile works.
Recommendation:
18. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends the unions should agree to the proposed
changes in plant operation; this to be subject to agreement being
reached, through the negotiation process, on appropriate
compensation for loss of overtime, revised arrangements for meal
and fatigue breaks and clean-up time.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86941 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10928
CC861784 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10928
PARTIES: ROADSTONE TILES AND MASONRY LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Proposed tile plant re-arrangement in Clondalkin tile works.
General background:
2. There are a total of 19 employees at the Company's tile plant
in Clondalkin where the present dispute has arisen, viz 11
operatives, 5 craft and 3 administrative workers. The 11
operatives are directly involved in this dispute.
3. The Company says that following agreement in February, 1986,
in relation to a reduction in manning levels and plant operation
it was agreed that some anomolies which were not in line with the
House Agreement would be discussed and resolved at local level.
Some of these items are no longer in dispute but the following
four issues, put forward by the company, are still in contention:-
(a) conditions under which overtime is worked;
(b) meal and fatigue breaks;
(c) changes in plant operations and
(d) clean up time.
As no agreement could be reached at local level on these matters
they were referred, by the Company, on the 3rd November, 1986, to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference, held on 13th November, 1986, the Unions indicated that
they were prepared to enter meaningful negotiations on items (a),
(b) and (d) provided the Company withdrew proposal (c). This was
unacceptable to the Company and the matters in dispute were
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 15th December, 1986.
Item (a) - conditions under which overtime is worked
Background:
4. The normal daily starting time in the Company is 8 a.m. Due
to pressure of work in the past, however, it was necessary for
some operatives to start work at 7 a.m. each day. This extra hour
was worked on an overtime basis and was paid for at the rate of
double time. Arising from a down-turn in business and a change in
manning levels in the plant the Company says it is no longer
necessary for the workers concerned to come on duty each day at 7
a.m. and that the working of such overtime in the future will
depend on the level of business and production requirements. This
was unacceptable to the Unions.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) In relation to the working of overtime in the plant
clause 6 of the House Agreement states, inter alia:-
"............ overtime working will depend on the
demands of the business and cannot be guaranteed.
Management will decide if and when this overtime is
required and employees agree to co-operate in
working such overtime ............"
Therefore, the proposed arrangements are in accordance
with the provisions of the agreement.
(b) The Company cannot be compelled to pay for
non-productive overtime.
Unions' argument:
6. The Company's proposal on overtime working would
deprive the workers concerned of agreed overtime
earnings which is long established and has become part
of their normal income. This is unacceptable to the
Unions.
Item (b) - meal and fatigue breaks
Background:
7. At present employees have a paid lunch break and three
"fatigue breaks" at 9.30 a.m., 11 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. This system
originated when the plant ran continuously. The Company now
proposes that the future operating hours of the plant will be from
8 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. with a ten minute tea break in the morning and
a 30 minute unpaid lunch break. By way of compensation for the
change in the lunch break arrangements the Company has offered to
pay a sum of #1350 (taxable) to each worker involved. The
proposal was unacceptable to the Unions.
Company's arguments:
8. (a) The Company's proposal on the hours of plant operation
and on meal and tea breaks is in accordance with the
terms of clause 5 of the House Agreement.
(b) Implementation of the Company's proposal will bring
the operation of the plant into line with that which
obtains in other Company production locations, in
relation to lunch and tea breaks.
(c) The Company recognises merit in a claim for
compensation for loss of the paid meal break and
accordingly has made a generous offer for acceptance
of this change.
Unions' argument:
9. The workers are entitled to fatigue breaks and to paid
meal breaks. These breaks are needed by the workers
and they are not prepared to sell them.
Item (c) - changes in plant operation
Background:
10. At present the strapping of tiles into bundles in the
Company's schade plant is done manually by a general operative
with a fitter in attendance. The Company proposes to automate the
schade plant which will result in the general operative no longer
being required in this area. The Company proposes that he be
re-deployed in the ridge room (i.e. an ancillary operation making
ridge tiles adjoining the main plant). Also, the mixing operation
and the tile machine variable speed controls are being amalgamated
and acrylic coating equipment is being introduced. It is proposed
by the Company to carry out this operation with 1 craft and 1
general operative. This, the Company says, will free 2 general
operatives, 1 of whom has already opted for redundancy, to make up
to 3 men available to operate the ridge tile plant on a daily
basis. The proposed changes in plant operation were rejected by
the Unions.
Company's arguments:
11. (a) There would be no loss of jobs as a result of the
proposed changes, only a re-deployment of operators
and a securing of an otherwise "redundancy situation".
Therefore, the question of compensation in respect of
the implementation of the proposed changes does not
arise.
(b) The proposed changes are necessary to make the plant
more efficient and to bring Company production costs
more into line with those of its competitors.
Unions' arguments:
12. (i) In its document of 3rd September, 1986, on proposed
changes in plant operations the Company stated as
follows:-
"Plant operation (Tile and Ridge)
Plant is operating with 10 general, 5 maintenance
and 3 administrative (Total 18). It is proposed to
reduce this staffing by 2 by voluntary redundancy
and/or natural wastage. In operating the plant
with this revised level of manpower, team work, as
already discussed at an earlier stage, will play a
very important part. The team work necessary to
make the plant viable is co-operation between all
groups, as previously outlined. It is in the
interests of all those remaining to ensure that the
plant is operated effectively and efficiently so
that our company can compete on cost with others in
the market place with so much less manning and
therefore less cost.
In relation to plant efficiency it is only grossing
42/45 tiles per minute. This is also adding
drastically to the cost of production. The plant
will have to run at 60 tiles per minute nett".
Last January the Labour Court issued a Recommendation
(Recommendation No. 10232 refers) based on a reduction
to nineteen in the manning levels in the plant. now
the Company has a manning level of eighteen and in
accordance with their document of 3rd September, as
quoted it wants to reduce this further. This is
unacceptable.
(ii) When the rationalisation programme was introduced the
Company stated that the remaining workers would not
suffer a reduction in earnings. Now drastic
reductions are proposed.
(iii) When the Unions objected to the introduction of the
manning level of nineteen on the basis that this was
too low the Company gave an undertaking that machine
speeds would be reduced and this was stated in the
Company's submission to the Court in December, 1985,
on the matter of manning levels. Now the Company
proposes to increase machine speeds to achieve 60
tiles per minute nett.
(iv) On 29th September, 1986, the Company wrote to the
Union as follows:-
"Plant Operation
Action:
The situation of extra redundancies has been
investigated and the Company's revised proposal is
to automate the Schade Collating Plant. Because of
this there will not be a need to manually strap. A
fitter will operate and maintain the Schade Plant.
A second fitter to take on-line operation of the
Tile machine and thereby releasing a second general
operator. These two operators will then form part
of a three man team to operate the ridge plant on a
full time basis ......."
This proposal is in direct conflict with the case put
forward by the Company only last year when it pushed
through the reduced manning levels. The Company
clearly spelled out that with a manning level of
nineteen the ridge plant would only operate on a
part-time basis. Now with a manning level of eighteen
it proposes to take out three workers to operate the
ridge plant on a full-time basis.
(v) The Company's proposal involves putting fitters in to
do the work which is at present done by general
operatives. This is totally unacceptable to the
Unions.
(vi) The implementation of the Company's proposal on plant
operation would break all the commitments given by it
in relation to reduced manning levels implemented
earlier this year. While the Unions accept that
agreements do not last forever nevertheless, they find
it incredible for the Company to make such a major
shift in its position in the space of a few months.
If this proposal is implemented it will leave the
Company with no credibility as far as the workers are
concerned. Therefore the proposal should be
withdrawn.
Item (d) - clean up time
Background:
13. The present time allotted for cleaning up the plant after
production ceases is one hour. The Company proposes to reduce the
general clean up time to 30 minutes. This was rejected by the
Unions.
Company's arguments:
14. (a) There will be no loss of earnings arising from this
proposed change. All it means is that the plant will
produce more tiles on a daily basis thereby reducing
unit cost.
(b) Where the need arises for specialised cleaning, any
extra overtime needed will be allocated on a fair
basis.
(c) Personal cleaning time will be 10 minutes after the 30
minute general cleaning period of both ridge and tile
operations.
Unions' argument:
15. It is not possible to do the clean up operation in the
time proposed by the Company.
Company's general argument:
16. With the continuing decline in the building and
construction industry and the overall fall in demand
for roof tiles, it has become almost impossible for
the Company to remain competitive. Therefore, if the
Company is to survive in the tile business and
maintain existing jobs it is necessary that it becomes
as efficient as the best of its many competitors.
Accordingly, the Company must achieve the proposed
changes immediately and continue to adapt quickly to
whatever changes are necessary in a rapidly changing
market environment.
/..........
Union's general arguments:
17. (i) Management continuously refer to the need for a "team"
approach to the tile plant operation. This "team"
concept was reflected in their idea of fitters doing
general operative work, extra flexibility, loss of
breaks, etc. However, the "team" approach does not
mean that other categories were to lose their overtime
entitlements nor did it mean that the general workers
were to receive the same pay and conditions as their
"team mates". In fact on occasions other categories
were offered #1.00 per hour extra to do general
operative work while no increase was offered to the
general operative grade. Therefore, the workers
concerned are determined that, before the set of
proposals in question are embarked upon, all members
of the Clondalkin tile plant "team" be brought up to a
common scale and that parity of pay and conditions
extended to other grades be extended to the general
operatives.
(ii) The issue of overtime, meal breaks and clean-up times
are crucial and potentially unpalatable for the
workers. However, they are prepared to enter into
negotiations on these 3 matters provided the Company
shows its good faith by dropping one set of its
proposals - the plant Operation proposal. The Unions
consider this a reasonable approach to resolving the
dispute.
RECOMMENDATION:
18. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends the unions should agree to the proposed
changes in plant operation; this to be subject to agreement being
reached, through the negotiation process, on appropriate
compensation for loss of overtime, revised arrangements for meal
and fatigue breaks and clean-up time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd January, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman