Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87177 Case Number: LCR11168 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BALLINAMORE TEXTILES LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the changing of work targets of two employees.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that if the values, when
installed, were intrinsically correct, that a high level of
earnings is not sufficient reason to warrant changing them.
In this case, however, it does seem that the Company was remiss in
not taking into account modified equipment and methods which were
introduced over time which warranted a restudy at an earlier date.
In these particular circumstances the Court recommends the
extension of the eight weeks' allowance to sixteen weeks.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87177 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11168
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11168
Parties: BALLINAMORE TEXTILES LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the changing of work targets of two
employees.
Background:
2. In November, 1986, the Company informed the workers that it
intended to change the targets on the Kimballing and Bagging
operations. This was opposed by the Union, which claimed that it
would result in substantial losses in earnings for the two
operatives concerned. The Union's industrial engineer visited the
factory on the 30th January, and a meeting with Management took
place on that occasion. A further meeting took place on the 26th
February but no progress could be made and Management confirmed
that the new targets would become operative from the 2nd March,
1987. In addition, it announced that it would forward a system of
allowances to ease in the new targets. This was rejected by the
Union which sought a deferral of the changes until the dispute
could be investigated by a third party. However, the Company was
unwilling to attend either a Rights Commissioner or a conciliation
conference and on the 4th March, 1987, the Union referred the
matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place in Navan on the
1st April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The basis of the Company's decision is that targets on
Kimballing and Bagging have become "loose" and are
"unfair" because the earning potential on both jobs is
greater than other operations in the factory. The
Company does not deny that the target is the original
and correct target issued by its own industrial
engineer. There is also complete acceptance that there
is absolutely no change in the work content of either
operation. The Company also accepts that there have
been no ad hoc alterations in method by the members to
help improve the performance unfairly.
(b) From the Union's viewpoint the two targets, or values,
are proven or established. In essence that means that,
with proper application and appropriate effort, the
members involved have demonstrated over a period of
years that a reasonable bonus payment can be earned
consistently.
(c) The Union submits to the Court extracts from agreements
covering bonus schemes and guidelines laid down by the
International Labour Office, British Institute of
Management and the Handbook of Industrial Engineering,
all of which set out the very clear circumstances in
which proven values may be altered. Basically, those
circumstances are confined to substantial change in job
content, method or where there has been a clerical
error. None of these factors are relevant in the
dispute before the Court. The Company knows and
accepts this as a fact, yet the decision to enforce the
changes still stands.
(d) The Union's worst fears were confirmed during the
meetings with Management (referred to earlier), when it
was revealed that there had been proven values changed
on previous occasions without justification or the
workers' consent. Management seem to have adopted a
cavalier attitude towards internationally accepted
standards on the protection of values. Its only form
of compromise on the matter was to suggest a long
period of gradually diminishing allowances to ease in
the higher values. This compromise has been rejected
by the members because it means acceptance of the
Company's claim to have the right to change any value
if they so decide.
(e) The Court is confidently expected to uphold the guiding
principles laid down by all recognised authorities on
industrial engineering. It is further expected to
unequivocally recommend that the two values
unilaterally changed by this employer must be restored
to their original level and that any consequential loss
incurred by the members must be made good.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The present values were installed approximately four
years ago. Since that time, through a series of small
adjustments and improvements to the equipment used,
better methods and the development of high skill on the
job by means of repetitive action, the rates have
proved to be loose. Average performance of 160% on
standard was being yielded on both jobs. While
accepting that both operatives are top class performers
and would be rated at 125%/130%, a rate showing a yield
of 160% is incorrect and unfair.
(ii) The Company contends that any value which is incorrect,
either too tight or too loose, must be adjusted, not
only to remain competitive in a difficult market, but
in the interest of fair play and equal standards for
all employees.
(iii) The new standards were implemented on the week
commencing the 2nd March, 1987, and an allowance was
paid over an eight week period. Current average
performance on the new rates is 133%.
(iv) The Company is confident in the fairness of its
standards and of the rate of pay earned over a 38 3/4
hour week. Average performance on standard is 95%
while average pay is #112 per week. These averages
include all operatives over six weeks in employment and
compare very favourably with national averages.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that if the values, when
installed, were intrinsically correct, that a high level of
earnings is not sufficient reason to warrant changing them.
In this case, however, it does seem that the Company was remiss in
not taking into account modified equipment and methods which were
introduced over time which warranted a restudy at an earlier date.
In these particular circumstances the Court recommends the
extension of the eight weeks' allowance to sixteen weeks.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman.
8th May, 1987.
D.H./J.C.