Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88194 Case Number: LCR11796 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MITSUI DENMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of 8 process operators for a payment of £5,000 each in respect of increased productivity.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and having visited the factory and inspected the existing
and proposed work, is of the view that the change proposed by
management does not involve any additional burden of significance
on the cell re-arrangers. Accordingly the Court does not
recommend concession of the claim as submitted.
The Court does recommend, however, that in the interests of the
future viability of this employment the claimants should
co-operate by removing the present restrictions on output. The
Company, for its part, should agree to review with the trade union
after a period of six months the level of overtime earnings of the
eight claimants.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88194 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11796
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MITSUI DENMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 8 process operators for a payment of £5,000
each in respect of increased productivity.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company produces Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide (E.M.D.)
which it exports worldwide to dry battery manufacturers. There
are four main processes in the production of E.M.D.; - ore
crushing, leaching, electrolysis and product finishing.
3. The workers concerned work in the electrolysis plant. It is
here that the E.M.D. is produced. (Details supplied to the Court)
When the plant was constructed in the early 1970's 168 cells were
installed. In each cell were 45 cathodes and 44 anodes. At the
end of the electrolysis period (approximately 14-16 days) all the
cathodes and anodes are removed from the cell by means of an
overhead crane. After the manganese dioxide is removed, the
electrodes are inserted into the cell again using the overhead
crane. This process is called cell rearranging. It is this
process on which the workers concerned in this claim are employed.
4. In May and June, 1986, the Company in pursuing its on-going
target of improving technology in order to improve production
tested the feasibility of using 50 anodes and 51 cathodes in each
cell. In August, 1987, the conversion of cells began and by
November, 1987, half of the cells had been changed.
5. In November, 1987, the Union on behalf of the workers
concerned lodged a claim for a once-off payment of £5000 in
respect of the changes which had occurred, and indicated that
unless the claim was conceded they would not co-operate with the
conversion of the remaining 84 cells. The cells would only be
re-arranged at a level which would not satisfy Company
requirements resulting in a shortfall which would have to be made
up on an overtime basis.
6. The Company rejected the claim and meetings at local level
failed to resolve the dispute. The matter was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on 8th December, 1987. A
Conciliation Conference was held on 13th January, 1988. As no
agreement was possible both parties agreed on the 8th March, 1988,
to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 25th March, 1988.
The Court subsequently visited the factory to examine the work
process in the electrolysis plant on the 13th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The work on the converted cells is physically more
demanding. The gap between the electrodes is smaller,
deposits build up more easily and these have to be cleaned
more regularly. It is also more difficult to position the
overhead crane when removing and replacing the cells.
2. The workers have agreed to major changes in manning
levels and shifts in the past in order to bring about
increased productivity (details supplied to the Court).
3. The workers feel that their claim is justified as it is a
once off payment and if conceded the workers would make every
effort to attain reasonable targets set by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has carefully examined cell-rearranging
operations and is satisfied that the production targets
required are fully achievable both in normal shift hours and
with current levels of staff. Examination of the tests
undertaken in 1986 and experience of existing 50 anode
operations leave no doubt that the production levels required
are attainable. If there was any doubt about this then the
significant capital investment incurred in this area to date
would not have taken place.
2. The refusal of the employees to co-operate with the
production requirements and the conversion programme without
special compensation represents not only a cost which the
Company cannot provide for, but would also undermine the
confidence that the shareholders need to have in the Cork
facility if it is to be given the support required in the
period ahead.
3. To assist the technology improvements programme the
Japanese principals gave support to the necessary investment.
Without this, recovery from the existing difficulties towards
a financially viable facility would be impossible. Despite
this goodwill the prospects are now being frustrated by the
action of the employees and the additional costs both
directly and indirectly which the Union claim represents.
4. It is acknowledged by the employees involved that the
necessary production output and completion of the conversion
can be achieved if the Company concedes this claim. Despite
the very serious problems of the Company at present it is
regrettable that they feel justified in not only making this
claim but adopting a non co-operative attitude.
5. In the market, competition is severe, and the Company
must respond to this by making operations more cost
effective. To reduce unit costs of production is in this
context both an urgent and absolute priority.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and having visited the factory and inspected the existing
and proposed work, is of the view that the change proposed by
management does not involve any additional burden of significance
on the cell re-arrangers. Accordingly the Court does not
recommend concession of the claim as submitted.
The Court does recommend, however, that in the interests of the
future viability of this employment the claimants should
co-operate by removing the present restrictions on output. The
Company, for its part, should agree to review with the trade union
after a period of six months the level of overtime earnings of the
eight claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th April, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman