Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88659 Case Number: LCR12153 Section / Act: S67 Parties: J LYONS & COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for regrading on behalf of two employees.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having visited the plant to see the work concerned the Court does
not consider that the changes in the jobs in question are such as
to warrant a formal evaluation, and the Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88659 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12153
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: J LYONS & COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for regrading on behalf of two employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986 the Company purchased and installed two new tea bag
machines in the gallery area of the plant, in order to improve
productivity. The gallery area was extended by twenty five feet
and loose tea packing machines were moved to the new area and in
their place the Company substituted the two new machines. The
Union requested that the Company agree to have the duties of two
tea blenders (grade 4) re-examined and evaluated against the
duties of workers on the next higher grade (grade 5). The Union
argued that the changes brought about by the Company made the
workers' job more difficult, while the Company contended that in
fact their job was made easier. The Company agreed to allow the
Union's Industrial Engineering Officer examine the operation in
December, 1986 (details of his report have been supplied to the
Court). The Union Engineer could not compare the new system with
the old but he indicated that the employees were working at a rate
in excess of normal performance which would warrant bonus
payments. As no bonus scheme existed he proposed that the workers
jobs should be evaluated against a higher graded job. The Company
rejected this proposal and commissioned a report on the issue by
the Irish Productivity Centre (details supplied to the Court).
The Report concluded that there does "not appear to have been a
significant change in the work load of the gallery operatives."
Following local discussions and a conciliation conference in 1987
both sides agreed to arrange a meeting between representatives of
the I.P.C. and the I.T.G.W.U. to discuss their findings. However
these discussions were inconclusive and the case was referred back
to conciliation on the 24th May, 1988. A conciliation conference
was held on the 16th August, 1988 but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on the 22nd August, 1988. A Labour Court hearing
took place on the 14th October, 1988.
2
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since 1986 the operatives concerned made a request to the
Company to have their jobs re-valued to no avail. The Company
insisted on making the changes first, before allowing the jobs
to be examined. The employees insisted that the changes made
in their area made the job more difficult and the Company
eventually agreed to allow the Union's Industrial Engineering
Officer examine the operation in December, 1986. The
engineer's proposal for revaluation against a higher grade was
rejected by the Company. At a conciliation conference in
October, 1987 the industrial relations officer suggested that
the representative of the I.P.C. and the Union's engineer
should meet to discuss their respective findings on the
workload before and after changes in the gallery area. The
two experts met and agreed that the best solution was to have
the job as it now was re-evaluated against a higher graded
job, and it was suggested that both experts carry out a joint
job evaluation exercise to resolve the issue in dispute. The
Company refused to allow this exercise to take place.
2. The Union is only seeking at this point to have the duties
of the two tea blenders re-assessed following the changes
implemented by the Company. In most large employments where a
graded wage structure operates, a job evaluation committee
also exists to review, from time to time, changes that may
occur in the way a task or duty is performed, and to decide if
up-grading is warranted. No such committee exists in this
Company. These jobs were last evaluated some thirteen years
ago and it is not unreasonable to request to have them
re-assessed in a situation where changes have obviously taken
place. The I.P.C. report which the Company feel, supports
their position does however state that "cars have to be pushed
a longer distance" and also refers to "the lack of significant
change." This, in itself, implies that some change did take
place and the Union contends that any change warrants
evaluation. As far back as December, 1986 the Union Engineer,
suggested that the only way to resolve this matter was by way
of a job evaluation exercise being undertaken. This is still
a valid point and was subsequently endorsed by the I.P.C.
representative. The Company may fear that an assessment of
these two posts might lead to a glut of claims for
re-evaluation of jobs, but that would only happen where new
machinery is introduced or there are changes in the method of
work practices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has been a significant swing over the years from
loose tea to tea bags. In 1976, when standards for these
particular jobs were agreed, loose tea represented a
substantial percentage of total throughput, with a lesser
percentage balance represented by tea bags. However tea bag
sales now represent a much higher percentage of total, and a
further drift from packet tea is expected. With the 1986
alterations, tea bag machinery was situated nearer the mill
and this means that there is less handling involved. If the
tea bag machinery had been situated in the extension area, the
Union's position would be somewhat more understandable. There
has been a very significant drop in total throughput since
standards were agreed in 1976 (details furnished to the
Court) and throughput has continued to decline. Given these
statistics, it cannot be argued that the workload has
increased. The opposite in fact is the case.
2. At a conciliation conference held in October, 1987, the
Company commissioned a report on this issue by the Irish
Productivity Centre. The report concluded that there was not
significant change in the workload of the gallery operatives.
The industrial engineering officer of the Union also carried
out an assessment. The Company, however, has pointed out that
this assessment was based on a visit to the gallery when
throughput was extraordinarily high (prior to Christmas) and
was in fact the only day in twelve months that the thirteen
blend average was achieved. The industrial engineering
officer noted that it was difficult retrospectively to assess
what effect the extra machines have had on workload. The
Company accepts this view bearing in mind that the officer did
not have the opportunity of surveying the operation prior to
the October, 1986 alterations. At a resumed conciliation
conference on the 16th August, 1988, the Company offered to
pass to the Union side a diagram of the gallery which would
facilitate a pre and post October, 1986 comparison. In the
Company's view, a study of this diagram would substantiate its
case that the citing of the tea bag machinery closer to the
mill has made the job easier. The Union declined this offer.
In the Company's view there will be very serious repercussions
if these particular jobs are to be upgraded given the
circumstances detailed above. Bearing in mind the decline in
throughput described, the Company could not countenance
concession of the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having visited the plant to see the work concerned the Court does
not consider that the changes in the jobs in question are such as
to warrant a formal evaluation, and the Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
5th December, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.