Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87637 Case Number: LCR11476 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DOUWE EGBERTS LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for a pay increase for grade 1 employees in the tobacco loft area.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, recommends that the claimants should accept the
Company's offer in settlement of their claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87637 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11476
CC871050 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11476
PARTIES: DOUWE EGBERTS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for a pay increase for grade 1 employees in the tobacco
loft area.
Background:
2. Approximately three years ago the Company and Union entered
into discussions on operational changes in the loft area which
would result in changes in manning from three operatives to two.
As the parties were unable to resolve the issue it was agreed to
commission the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) to carry out an
investigation. The Report endorsed Management's proposals but was
rejected by the workers and, following failure to reach agreement,
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 20(2)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Both sides agreed
beforehand to accept the Court's recommendation. Following the
Court's investigation in February, 1987, LCR11057 was issued on
the 13th March, which stated -
"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".
3. New manning levels were introduced shortly after the issuing
of this recommendation. As a result, the Union, at a meeting with
Management on the 24th June, 1987, sought upgrading for loft
operatives from Group 1 to Group 4. This was rejected by
Management which offered to upgrade them to Group 2. As local
level discussions failed to resolve the matter, it was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 8th July. At
a conciliation conference, held on the 19th August, the Union
indicated that it would accept the Company's offer to upgrade to
Group 2 if Management also paid a weekly productivity allowance of
#9.49. This was unacceptable to the Company and as no progress
was made the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Athlone on the 29th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The changes introduced by the Company will save it
#180.41 in wages per shift while concession of the
Union's claim would only cost #36.84 in wages.
(b) The changed work practice would require the workers to
work at an average 94.3 B.S according to the IPC
report which would be among the highest standards
worked by anyone in the factory.
(c) The claimants work in conditions considerably worse
then any other employees in the factory.
(d) It is not unusual for the Company to pay allowances on
top of basic pay (details supplied to the Court).
(e) The Company has argued that upgrading the claimants to
Group 4 would upset internal and external
relativities. This is a spurious argument as the
relativities were set on a subjective basis and in the
past the Company had no problem in upgrading other
workers, e.g. technical stores.
(f) Where there are savings resulting from changes in work
practice it is normal good industrial relations
practice to share them with the workers concerned.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Three years ago the Company commenced negotiations
with the employees concerned on changes in the loft
area. These changes were intended to make their work
easier. The employees concerned have behaved totally
unreasonably throughout this period rejecting
independent reports, a Labour Court Recommendation
(despite the fact that their Union had accepted same),
engaged in deliberate disruption and finally
unofficial industrial action. On-going change is a
necessity if the Company is to remain viable. There
are currently substantial changes in work methods and
manning taking place in other areas of the Company
with the full co-operation of the Union and employees.
Management would respectfully request the Court to
recommend the complete unacceptability of the loft
employees' action in this case.
(b) The changes in the loft area actually involved easier
work for the employees (details in Appendix 1).
(c) Prior to the change the work in the loft was Group 1.
Despite the fact that the work had been made easier
following the issue of the IPC report in November,
1985, as a goodwill gesture, the Company offered the
operatives a move to Group 2 (i.e. from #180.41 to
#190.34). This was the maximum flexibility the
Company could exercise without seriously disrupting
the grading system. The Company would have been quite
justified and correct in maintaining Group 1 for the
work. Indeed had the Company not made this offer in
1985, having regard to developments since, the Company
would now be insisting that Group 1 be applied.
(d) Any improvement on the Company's offer of upgrading to
Group 2 would seriously and fundamentally undermine
the grading system with immediate knock-on claims from
other categories within the Company (details supplied
to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, recommends that the claimants should accept the
Company's offer in settlement of their claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
22nd October, 1987.
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX I
Prior to the change the operation was as follows -
(i) A pallet of 35 cartons is collected from the store, 4
cartons of which are taken off and put on a dolly and
subsequently the 31 carton pallet and the dolly are
brought to the loft area separately.
(ii) A carton (15kgs) of tobacco is taken from the pallet,
opened and emptied on to the conveyor.
(iii) The tobacco is then spread and teased out to allow it
to fit through the feeder pipe to the weighing machine.
Large stems are also picked out during spare time.
(iv) Empty cartons were collapsed and brought in bunches of
4 to 6 to a chute situated off the side of the loft.
(three workers would feed six units with two conveyors for
each unit. The main portion of work is spreading and teasing
and removing stems).
The new system operates as follows - (two employees'
involved)
(i) A pallet of 31 cartons is collected from the store and
brought to the loft area.
(ii) No change.
(iii) No longer required.
(iv) Collapsed carton to be placed on magazine dolly
situated at each machine.