Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88156 Case Number: LCR11814 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MEADOW MEATS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Improvement in the maintenance incentive scheme and in the maintenance unit cost.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions of both
sides, recommends that the Company's proposals be implemented and
that the Union avail of the services of its own work study
engineer to monitor the operation of the proposals in conjunction
with a qualified work study engineer on the Company's side if
necessary. Any specific difficulties which arise may be referred
back to the Court for detailed recommendation.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88156 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11814
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MEADOW MEATS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Improvement in the maintenance incentive scheme and in the
maintenance unit cost.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is concerned at the inequity of the bonus scheme in
that, although the age and amount of plant have both increased,
the bonus system has not changed to reflect these criteria. The
Company for its part is not prepared to accept any cost increases
in the maintenance area other than by way of increasing
efficiency. It has proposed to change the manning levels from 2
fitters, 1 electrician and 2 utility operatives to 3 fitters, 1
electrician and 1 utility operative and the elimination of
"restrictive practices" which still operate in the maintenance
area. The Union rejected this proposed manning arrangement.
Local level discussions failed to settle the matter and it was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
basis for a settlement was reached at conciliation conferences
held on 23rd October, and 11th December, 1987 and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court investigation into the dispute was held in Portlaoise on
22nd March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since the introduction of the maintenance incentive scheme
the amount of plant and equipment has greatly increased, thus
increasing the likelihood of breakdown and wear and tear.
This can have a considerable effect on the workers' potential
earnings. Other reasons for increased breakdowns include the
use of outside contractors who do poor quality work and lack
of preventitive maintenance. The workers consider that they
are now at an unfair disadvantage in relation to the incentive
scheme and are often penalised for matters beyond their
control. The culminating effect has been devastating on
morale in the department. The workers consider that a
complete revamping of the maintenance incentive scheme is
needed and in particular the breakdown factor should be raised
to a fair and equitable level.
3. 2. The Union has held a number of meetings with Management on
the question of unit costs. The Union suggested that there be
one supervisor, one electrician, two fitters and two utility
man in the area. The utility men could undertake some limited
craft duties but the Union could accept no dilution of the
craftsman's status as would occur if the Company's proposal
was implemented.
3. 3. The Union pointed out deficiencies in the system of
operation to the Company on a number of occasions but no
remedial action was taken. Any suggestions for improving the
efficiency of the maintenance area have been turned down.
3. 4. The workers in the maintenance area have suffered in
comparison to other workers in the Company. They received a
very small Christmas bonus and initially although all other
workers were offered the terms of the National Plan for
Recovery the maintenance section were told they would not be
offered anything until the unit costs were resolved. This
offer was subsequently revised to include the maintenance
department for 1988 but if the unit costs were not resolved
this year no further increases for the duration of the plan
would apply.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The maintenance section has a staff of 6 which is
relatively high and yet efficiency is very low. The Company
has to use contractors as well as its own high maintenance
staff complement. This situation cannot continue. As well as
replacing 1 utility operative for 1 fitter which is a
management prerogative, the Company is seeking the complete
elimination of restrictive practices and the working of the
utility operative to his full potential. Specifically this
should be as per the document submitted by the Company to the
Union and employees on the matter (see appendix 1). This is
necessary to make the maintenance department viable and cost
effective. Failure to achieve the necessary improvement in
unit maintenance costs will leave the Company no alternative
but to consider alternative cost effective options. The
employees and Union have already been advised of this.
2. The "changes" the Company require are merely normal
working standards as apply in any Company today which has
managed to survive. Over the past ten years there has been a
substantial number of companies in the Meat Industry which
have failed financially because they did not monitor and
manage their levels of efficiency. The Company's rates of pay
compare favourably with other companies in the Meat Industry
and in the maintenance area the Company implemented a bonus
system which probably has no parallel in terms of the reward
earned by the operatives in other meat companies.
3. There are no grounds for a claim for an increase or for
compensation for taking on board these normal standards of
working. It has always been Company policy to ensure that
efficiency levels are kept up to date as part of normal
ongoing change and development. The Company operates in an
industry which is in a constant state of evolution. The
Company has managed to stay abreast of the competition in
terms of efficiency levels and the reward for this has been
the continued operational success of the operation.
4. For the Company to consider paying any increase in wages
over and above that in the National Plan could be financially
self-destructive. The Irish Meat Industry is currently
undergoing a crisis which is having a serious impact on
profit levels. To survive over the next 3/4 years is going to
require the full support and commitment of all employees
operating to the highest standards of efficiency. Operating
at sub-optimum efficiency levels or having to pay extra for
'normal efficient standards of operation' will have far
reaching long term effects on the financial soundness of and
confidence in the operation as well as leading to disharmony
and knock-on consequences in other areas of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions of both
sides, recommends that the Company's proposals be implemented and
that the Union avail of the services of its own work study
engineer to monitor the operation of the proposals in conjunction
with a qualified work study engineer on the Company's side if
necessary. Any specific difficulties which arise may be referred
back to the Court for detailed recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
-----------------
25th April, 1988 Chairman.
R.B./J.C.
APPENDIX I
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
1. It is recognised that the unit cost problem or difficulties in
the Maintenance Area can be solved by full co-operation and
flexibility in this area as detailed below.
2. UTILITY:
2.1 The Utility Men are required to carry out these duties or
tasks as directed by the Engineering Manager.
2.2 These duties to include:
(i) the use of tools for the routine assembly and
dis-assembly of plant and equipment as laid out in the
Manufacturer's Manual.
(ii) routine servicing and setting of plant and equipment as
scheduled and described in the Manufacturer's Manual.
(iii) attendance and running of services, plant and
equipment.
2.3 Any training or familiarisation to competently perform
required duties to be provided by Management and fully
accepted by employees. Engineer or skilled fitters to provide
training or familiarisation where appropriate as required by
Management. Internal or external courses may be necessary.
3. FITTERS:
3.1 Required to carry out those maintenance duties and tasks as
scheduled by the Engineering Manager.
3.2 A Fitter is to be self-sufficient in the performance of any
maintenance task or duty except where the tasks of the job
dictate that the job cannot be carried out by one man. Any
maintenance task or duty requiring more than one man must have
the prior approval of the Engineering Manager?
3.3 Full flexibility in the carrying out of routine maintenance
tasks including servicing, lubrication and repair of plant and
equipment and buildings.
4. GENERAL
4.1 The above procedures and practices supersede all previous
customs and practices or operating procedures and are designed
to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the
maintenance function.
4.2 In cases where there is a disagreement over the carrying out
of an instruction or task, the employee is required to carry
out the instruction under protest if necessary, whilst the
dispute is being processed through the appropriate disputes
procedure.