Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88731 Case Number: LCR12170 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TILLOTSON LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims by the Union: (a) That the Company breached an agreement by introducing changes in work-practices during a period of short-time working. (b) Compensation for changes in quality control (Q.C.) work practices. (c) For the move of the final audit check from the Q.C. office to the machine shop floor.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has considered the issues before it and recommends
as follows:
(a) Breach of Agreement
Having regard to the extent of the negotiations and
consultations which took place and in particular having
regard to the trading situation which gave rise to the
necessity for the changes the Court does not consider
that any breach of agreement took place. The Court does
not therefore recommend concession of the Unions claim
in this respect.
(b) Compensation for change and
(c) Compensation for change in location.
Once again having regard to the trading situation and
the generally agreed necessity for a flexible approach
to the work of the plant the Court does not consider
that the changes in work method, reporting procedure, or
work station are such as to warrant the payment of any
compensation.
The Court does not recommend concession of either of the Unions
claims under the above headings.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88731 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12170
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TILLOTSON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union:
(a) That the Company breached an agreement by introducing
changes in work-practices during a period of short-time
working.
(b) Compensation for changes in quality control (Q.C.) work
practices.
(c) For the move of the final audit check from the Q.C.
office to the machine shop floor.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures carburettors in Tralee, Co. Kerry.
Due to currency fluctuations earlier in the year, the Company were
obliged to introduce short-time working from May, 1988 to 2nd
September, 1988. During the period of short-time working the
Company introduced a number of changes in work-practice for Q.C.
staff. Among the changes introduced was a 100% check at final
audit, from what had previously been a spot check. The location
for the final check was also changed from the Q.C. office to the
machine shop floor. The Union on behalf of the workers, rejected
the changes when they were first proposed, contending that the
changes were contrary to an agreement that there would be no
changes during the period of short-time working, and furthermore
no compensation was being offered. The Company introduced the
changes on 15th August, 1988, and there followed a work stoppage
of three days in the factory. Agreement could not be reached on
the issues at local level and on 12th August, 1988 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 7th September, 1988.
Agreement could not reached, and on 29th September, 1988, the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Limerick on 9th
November, 1988.
CLAIM A: That the Company breached an agreement by introducing
changes in work-practices during a period of short-time
working.
BACKGROUND:
Because of trading difficulties early in 1988, the Company
introduced short-time working from May to early September. During
the short-time working changes were introduced in quality control
work practices. The Union claimed that the Company was in breach
of the agreement in relation to short-time working by implementing
change during the period of the short-time. An unofficial dispute
ensued following the introduction of the changes. The Company
denied that it was in breach of the agreement by seeking to
implement the type of changes involved during the course of the
short-time.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Agreement was reached for the introduction of short-time
working or redeployment, specifically appying to the period
May, 2nd to September 2nd 1988. It was further agreed that no
additional changes would take place during this period of
short time working (details supplied to the Court). The
Company further wrote on June 9th, 1988 confirming that no
changes would take place in which they stated as follows:
"The Company wish to confirm that the practices established
in the Q.C. area since May 23rd 1988 should continue. If
there is to be any deviation from ths practice by either
party, there shall be prior consultations. It should also
be understood that the practice established since May 23rd
is to continue up to the end of the short time working in
September, 1988." (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Union considers that the changes introduced
unilaterally by the Company with no offer of compensation is a
flagrant breach of its agreement. The Union requests the
Court to so recommend.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In April of 1988, the Company, as part of an overall
survival programme, began a series of discussions with the
staff and trade unions involved, in an effort to have changes
put in place which would serve to reduce unit costs and reduce
the losses which the Company was experiencing. In the course
of a lengthy series of meetings, a package of proposals was
worked out involving the temporary redeployment of indirect
personnel, in tandem with the option of introducing short time
working, or a finite period of lay off for those wishing to
avail of such an option. It was agreed between the parties
that the package of measures, redeployment, short time
working, etc, would commence on 02/05/88 and would conclude on
September, 02/88. It was made clear that following the
introduction of these new finite arrangements, that further
ongoing efforts would have to be made to address the
difficulties which were at the foundation of the unit cost
problem.
2. As an alternative to reducing the number of Q.C. personnel
the Company proposed to change the method of final audit in
the assembly area of the factory so that 100% batch inspection
replaced sample inspection. This method was nothing new in
the Company as it had already been operating in some of the
Q.C. areas. Quality Control in the other area of the factory,
the machine shop, was also changed, with a view to eliminating
the cause of poor quality. On August 5th a change was made to
the reporting procedures for Q.C. personnel, where they were
now asked to report to the supervisor in the particular area
where they worked, rather than to a central Q.C. structure.
This measure was also introduced with a view to improving
quality. In keeping with the agreement between the parties an
extensive series of briefings were held, where the appropriate
manager met with their respective personnel, beginning on July
27th, to explain the nature of the changes required. There
followed an extensive series of meetings between Management
and the Q.C. personnel (details supplied to the Court). To
keep within the terms of the agreement Management made it
clear that in recognition of the introduction of the medium
term measures, the short time and redeployment arrangements
put in place in May could end for those who wanted. The
Company is satisfied that it stayed within the spirit and
letter of the agreement, and the only breach that occurred was
occasioned by the unofficial action in the plant. The Company
asks the Court to so recommend.
CLAIM B: Compensation for changes in quality control work
practices.
BACKGROUND
The Company has introduced three changes in work practices for the
Q.C. assembly line workers:
(1) The final audit check has been changed from a spot-check
to a 100% inspection.
(2) Quality control inspectors are to carry out both minor
and major repairs if necessary.
(3) Quality control personnel will henceforth report to the
production supervisors to inform them of specific
problems on the assembly line.
The Union is claiming #2,000 compensation for each of the 10
workers involved.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In September, 1988, the Union's Industrial Engineering
Officer carried out an evaluation of the changes in the
quality control assembly work (details supplied to the Court).
The officer evaluated the job under the factors of
skill/responsibility, and found that in its changed state the
job should be upgraded by about 4 grades. On this basis the
Union's claim for compensation of #2,000 per person is fully
justified.
2. The Company introduced the changes unilaterally, without
the agreement of the workforce. The work has changed
dramatically with the workers now having a great deal more
pressure and responsibility to contend with. They are now
much more tied to the production line than they were in the
past. In order to carry out their jobs, the workers must now
be capable of building and repairing all the makes of
carburettors produced in the plant.
3. It is clear that the value of the work done has
substantially increased. The Union is not opposed to changes,
nor to the Company's right to manage. The workers are
production orientated, and prepared to go along with necessary
adjustments. The Company appear however, to be attempting to
turn the workers into "general utility people," without any
compensation for the increase in value of their work. The
Union requests the Court to recommend in its favour.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The package of short term survival measures agreed between
the Company were adopted to ensure the survival of the
enterprise. The agreement reached involved a set of short
term changes which were envisaged to last for a period not
exceeding September 2nd. The prospect of other more medium
term changes designed to tackle such key problems as unit cost
and improved quality were made clear during discussions in
April, and accepted by both parties to be essential.
2. It is clearly enshrined in the Company/Union house
agreement that the employer has the sole and exclusive right
to determine the methods, processes and means of operation.
At the point when the Company proposed to change the method of
final audit for assembly Q.C. and the reporting format, an
offer was made to remove all the short term arrangements
introduced in the survival package agreed in April. Thus, it
is clear that the Company were in keeping with the essential
spirit of the agreement and even improved upon the actual
letter of it by bringing the redeployment/short time measures
to an early end.
3. The work methods which the Company introduced in the Q.C.
assembly area were introduced with two principal objectives in
mind; firstly to improve the overall level of quality and
cost effectiveness by replacing sample inspection with 100%
batch inspection, and secondly adopt the reporting procedures
so that an improved level of quality sensitivity can be
achieved, thus allowing corrective action to be made quickly
in the areas required.
4. It should be noted that various control methods have been
used in the Company in the past and that 100% online
inspection was the norm in the past, the only item having
changed on its reintroduction is that it now takes place at
the end of the line. In this regard it should also be noted
that the method outlined has been in use by certain of the
Q.C. personnel for some time, and the change required is to
extend the same method to all Q.C. personnel in the assembly
area. The basis of the job function of a Q.C. inspector is to
carry out checks on the products produced. The Company are in
no way asking Q.C. personnel to go beyond the terms of the job
for which they were recruited or to do anything more than they
have done in the past.
5. The Court should be aware that the claim for compensation
was made prior to inspection by the Union's Industrial
Engineer, a copy of who's report the Company was not provided
with. The essence of the matter is that a days work remains a
days work. The only difference in the reporting procedures is
that difficulties are now reported directly to the production
supervisor instead of indirectly through the quality control
supervisor. The Company totally rejects the claim and asks
the Court to support its position.
CLAIM C: Compensation for the change in location of the final
audit check from the Q.C. office to the shop floor
BACKGROUND:
In the past the final audit check was carried out in the Q.C.
office area, which is separated from the main production floor.
The Company has now moved the final audit check to the shop floor
area. The Union contends that this has adversely affected the
working conditions of its members and is claiming #500
compensation for each of the 8 workers concerned.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The move has adversely affected the working conditions of
the workers concerned. They are now forced to carry out their
checks in a hazardous environment, where they are subjected to
continuous noise from machines, smells from oils and coolants
and continuous interruptions from work colleagues seeking
advice and information. They also have to report to the
production supervisor to advise of specific problems as they
arise. The Union's Industrial Engineer examined the job and
found that the changed conditions warranted upgradings. The
Union is claiming compensation of #500 for each worker
concerned, and believes that its claim is fully justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The workers concerned in this claim already spend as much
as 75% of their time on the shop floor, and the relocation
should amount to a considerable convenience. The change is
completely logical, and in no way warrants compensation.
2. A claim for any form of compensation on the basis of the
minor alteration initiated by the Company is unjustifiable,
especially as the changes were initiated with a view to taking
the Company from a loss making position to a survival
situation. The Company asks the Court to uphold its position.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has considered the issues before it and recommends
as follows:
(a) Breach of Agreement
Having regard to the extent of the negotiations and
consultations which took place and in particular having
regard to the trading situation which gave rise to the
necessity for the changes the Court does not consider
that any breach of agreement took place. The Court does
not therefore recommend concession of the Unions claim
in this respect.
(b) Compensation for change and
(c) Compensation for change in location.
Once again having regard to the trading situation and
the generally agreed necessity for a flexible approach
to the work of the plant the Court does not consider
that the changes in work method, reporting procedure, or
work station are such as to warrant the payment of any
compensation.
The Court does not recommend concession of either of the Unions
claims under the above headings.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
15th December, 1988. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.