Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8763 Case Number: LCR11161 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PENN ATHLETE PRODUCTS LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately ten operatives for: (a) adherence to an agreement in the Covering Section, (b) upgrading in the Edge Dip Section.
Recommendation:
9. Claim (a) - Cover Service/Cover Monitor:
In light of the submissions made, the Court is of the opinion that
the Company's interpretation of the terms of the agreement are
correct and the Court further recommends that the Company's
proposals in respect of this issue are reasonable and should be
accepted.
Claim (b) - Edge Dip Section:
The Court does not find that the temporary difficulties
experienced on the introduction of the new process in this area
warrant upgrading as claimed and recommends acceptance of the
Company offer of accelerated movement to Grade B.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8763 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11161
CC77051 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11161
Parties: PENN ATHLETIC PRODUCTS COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately ten operatives for:
(a) adherence to an agreement in the Covering Section,
(b) upgrading in the Edge Dip Section.
General Background:
2. During negotiations on the 24th wage round, the Company put
forward proposals for revised manning levels and changes in work
practices. Agreement was finally reached following proposals
which emerged from a conciliation conference held in August, 1984
(details of proposals supplied to the Court). During 1986 a
dispute arose concerning the number of machines in the Covering
Section and the grading of workers in the Edge Dip. No local
level agreement could be reached and on the 17th December, 1986,
the Union referred the matter to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on the 9th
January, 1987, but no progress was made and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place in Navan on the 1st April, 1987.
Claim (a) - adherence to agreement in Covering Section
Background:
3. Cover service employees are responsible for ensuring that the
employees who cover the tennis balls have both felt and centres
available to them. Cover monitor staff are responsible for
monitoring the output of the Covering Section. These areas were
the subject of change arising out of the agreement of 1984 and the
Union is claiming that the Company document outlining the changes
in work practices shows that it was the Company's intention to
operate six cover machines per shift. Now that there are ten
machines in the Section (normally only eight are in use at any one
time) the Union is claiming that Management is in breach of the
1984 agreement and are seeking to have the numbers returned to six
machines. In response to the Union's claim the Company offered to
pay a 25p per hour premium whenever more than eight machines were
in use, but this was rejected by the workers concerned.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The Union believes that six machines is the maximum
number that can be looked after without the workers
putting themselves under strain.
(b) The Company has argued that the sentence in its document
of 1984 which reads "we will be making provision for
additional covering on first and second shifts on an as
required basis" gives it carte blanche to add on
additional machines to this operation. This is not the
Union's meaning of the agreement which is that if the
Company required additional covering then it would have
to consult with and get agreement from the Union.
(c) This the Company has failed to do and the Union requests
the Court to interpret the agreement in its favour. The
fact that the Company has offered more money for the
operation of additional machines is recognition of the
merit of the Union's argument. However, the amount of
money offered will not compensate the workers for the
extra work required and they are insisting that the
agreement of six machines per shift per person be
honoured.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) The Company has argued consistently at local level that
the agreement provides specifically for one person each
to perform cover service and cover monitor functions,
with eight machines in operation and by inference,
provision for additional cover beyond that point.
(ii) During discussions at local level concerning this issue,
the Company was willing, on the basis that the proposal
was to be recommended for acceptance, to recognise, in
the form of a special payment of 25p per hour, that an
additional effort was required to provide cover and
monitor service where more than eight cover machines
were being operated.
(iii) The 1984 agreements were reached with a view to
providing for ongoing change in the manufacturing
operation at Mullingar. Explicit in any programme for
ongoing change is the requirement that there be a
commitment from all concerned to that change. Indeed it
is stated throughout the agreement that the changes
which would be required would be major and some might
even be unforeseen. There has been considerable
co-operation in the implementation of these agreements
but it is essential that everyone recognises the
significance of the current disputes relative to the
provisions of the agreement. Future investment in the
plant is dependent on a number of factors, principally
the ability of all those involved to adapt to change and
to accept it.
Claim (b) - up-grading in the Edge Dip Section
Background:
6. Under the pay agreement in 1984 all employees on Grade C would
move to Grade B as follows:
1st phase December, 1984 1/4 movement from Grade C to B
2nd phase December, 1985 1/2 movement from Grade C to B
3rd phase December, 1986 3/4 movement from Grade C to B
4th phase December, 1987 Full movement from Grade C to B
However, because it claims that there has been an increase in the
workload, the Union has sought the application of the A Grade to
the operatives in the Edge Dip Section. In response to this claim
the Company offered to phase in Grade B at a faster rate in the
Section than for the rest of the factory. This offer was rejected
by a ballot of the workers concerned.
Union's arguments:
7. (a) In 1984, when discussing the Company's proposed changes,
the Union was advised that with the introduction of new
automated machinery there would be less manual work in
the Edge Dip Section. However, this is not what has
happened and the workload has in fact increased.
(b) The Company has blamed this increased workload on
teething problems with the new machinery but to date it
has been unable to rectify these problems. It did
however offer to bring forward the phasing out of Grade C
to 25% difference from the date of acceptance in October,
1986 and the final equalisation brought forward to
December, 1986. This was rejected by the workers because
they believe that the work they are now doing is equal in
value to that being done by Grade A operators.
Company's arguments:
8. (i) There have been some teething problems with the
introduction of the new equipment in the Edge Dip
Section and a number of them are still present.
However, the fundamental point at issue here is that
these problems are temporary and can be ironed out.
(ii) The Company is emphatic that, at the time of the 1984
agreement, each individual section of the workforce was
advised in great detail of all changes that would be
taking place under the terms of the agreement.
Therefore, the Company refutes any suggestion that
employees were unaware of the nature and extent of the
changes that would be required.
(iii) It should be noted that the problems in this section are
of a temporary nature and that in effect during the
course of time this dispute is being processed, the
Company perceives that the problem is diminishing and is
in no doubt that it will diminish further until such
time as all the problems in this area are completely
eradicated. Therefore, there cannot be any
justification for an increase in the rate above which
was negotiated in 1984.
Recommendation:
9. Claim (a) - Cover Service/Cover Monitor:
In light of the submissions made, the Court is of the opinion that
the Company's interpretation of the terms of the agreement are
correct and the Court further recommends that the Company's
proposals in respect of this issue are reasonable and should be
accepted.
Claim (b) - Edge Dip Section:
The Court does not find that the temporary difficulties
experienced on the introduction of the new process in this area
warrant upgrading as claimed and recommends acceptance of the
Company offer of accelerated movement to Grade B.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th May, 1987 John O'Connell
DH/PG ----------------
Deputy Chairman