Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8785 Case Number: LCR11057 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: DOUWE EGBERTS LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Manning levels.
Recommendation:
7. The Court recommends that the Union accept the Company's
proposal. The Court also recommends that the new operation should
be kept under observation by the parties with a view to
implementing any improvements in work methods which may be agreed
by them.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8785 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11057
SECTION 20(2) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11057
Parties: DOUWE EGBERTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Manning levels.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of tobacco products
and employs approximately 150 workers.
3. The dispute concerns the manning level on the Company's
tobacco loft area. There are three workers employed on the
operation in that area and the Company is seeking to have the
manning level there reduced to two. This issue was the subject of
discussions between the parties in negotiations on the 25th and
26th wage rounds but no agreement was reached. In an attempt to
resolve the matter, the Company commissioned the Irish
Productivity Centre (IPC) in late 1985, to carry out a study of
the work involved. The IPC issued its Report in November, 1985,
(copy supplied to the Court) and its conclusions were as follows:
"To operate the present six machines using two, would
require performance levels of 98 and 90.6 BS
performance from the 2 operatives.
Therefore it is concluded that it is within the
capabilities of 2 operatives to supply 6 machines.
It is recommended with a view to reducing the workload
on the two operatives concerned, that provision be made
to accommodate if possible, 2 pallets at the end of
each conveyor, by shortening the conveyors concerned
and provide assistance with them in the morning in
locating 14 pallets of the overall requirements of
17.29 required on a daily basis.
In addition, warning lights should be added to the
existing bells, to identify which conveyor is running
low."
Subsequently, the work involved was examined by the Union's Work
Study Engineer arising from which he took issue with the I.P.C.
Report on the following two counts:
(a) The fact that since there was no production bonus in
operation, it would be normal to set manning levels to
coincide with performance levels of 75 BS, rather than
the 98 and 90.6 set out in the IPC Report as the
estimated levels required.
(b) he disagreed with the actual timing as set out in
elements 3 and 4 of the Report.
The Company says that the I.P.C. in a comment on the objections of
the Union's Work Study Engineer, stated that while bonus payments
might normally commence at 75 BS1, it was however practice in a
Company which operates no bonus level, to require performance
levels of 90 to 100 BS1. In respect of the second point raised by
the Union the I.P.C. pointed out that element 3 was heavily
dependent on the amount of stalks removed and that when they were
carrying out the studies they were extremely careful to agree the
exact amount of stalk removal required with the relevant
personnel. The I.P.C. were therefore satisfied with the accuracy
of their Report.
4. In the course of negotiations on the 26th wage round the
Company, as part of its package of proposals, sought to implement
the proposed changes in the manning levels and in an effort to
reach final agreement on the matter offered to up-grade the
workers concerned to group 2, thereby increasing their weekly pay
from #180.41 to #190.34. The proposals on new manning levels were
unacceptable to the workers and as no agreement could be reached
at local level the matter was referred to the Labour Court, under
Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, for
investigation and arbitration as provided for in the terms of the
Company/Union agreement on the 26th wage round (copy supplied to
the Court). The Court investigated the dispute on 23rd February,
1987.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) In its Report the I.P.C., which is a Body respected by
all concerned in industrial relations, has upheld the
Company's position in relation to manning levels in the
area in question, having carried out an independent
evaluation of the matter. Therefore, the proposed
changes in manning levels should now be implemented.
(b) The Company has extensive experience of operating in
the tobacco Industry and the manning level proposed is
in fact higher than the comparable manning level in its
Dutch sister factories.
(c) In the current difficult economic climate it is
appropriate that all necessary tightening up of
standards are implemented and the Company should not be
forced to continue to accept inefficient manning
levels.
(d) The Company does not intend to have any redundancy
arising out of this change and any individual employee
displaced will be relocated in an appropriate job.
Furthermore, the Company has offered to upgrade the
workers concerned and this will result in their basic
pay being increased.
(e) As stated in the I.P.C. Report it is the practice in a
Company which does not operate a bonus scheme, as is
the position in this Company, to require performance
levels of 90 to 100 BS1. Therefore, the Union's
contention that 75 BS1 is a normal day's work where no
bonus scheme operates, is not valid.
(f) In all the circumstances, and particularly having
regard to the IPC Report, the manning level as required
by the Company is the appropriate level and should be
implemented.
Union's arguments:
6. (i) Major disagreements exist between the parties in
relation to the contents of the I.P.C. Report.
Therefore, the Report cannot be said to be an
acceptable document.
(ii) The workers concerned are satisfied that the proposed
new manning level in the area concerned is not
practicable and would prove unworkable, and the offer
by the Company to upgrade the workers would not change
this situation. Therefore, the Company's proposals in
this matter are unacceptable.
(iii) Acceptance of the I.P.C. Report would mean that the
workers' performance would be so high as to require two
people to do the work normally expected of over two and
a half people (details supplied to the Court). As it
is not normal practice in the Company for other
employees to have to work at such a high level of
productivity, the Union considers that the status quo
should continue.
(iv) It is accepted throughout industry generally that 75
BS1 is a normal day's work and where this level of
performance is exceeded, bonus is paid. However, as
the Company does not operate a bonus scheme it should
not expect employees to work in excess of 75 BS1.
(v) In all the circumstances, the Union considers that the
current manning level in the area should continue to
operate.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court recommends that the Union accept the Company's
proposal. The Court also recommends that the new operation should
be kept under observation by the parties with a view to
implementing any improvements in work methods which may be agreed
by them.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
13th March, 1987
T.McC./J.C.