Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87807 Case Number: LCR11687 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ALFA CAVAN RUBBER MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the role of supervisors/foremen in the factory.
Recommendation:
9. It seems clear to the Court that in the present circumstances
obtaining in the Company it is essential that priority must be
given to efficiency in production. The Court therefore recommends
that the workers accept that where necessary or where time is
available outside their normal supervisory function, supervisors
should assist on the shop floor to maximise out put and increase
the efficiency of the plant. The Company on the other hand should
monitor the time so spent to ensure that when work for a full time
operative becomes available, such operative will be re-employed.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87807 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11687
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ALFA CAVAN RUBBER MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the role of supervisors/foremen in the
factory.
BACKGROUND:
2. For a long number of years there have been differences between
the Union and the Company over the roles of supervisors/foremen.
In 1982, following an industrial dispute on wages both parties, as
part of the agreement on a return to work agreed that the role of
supervisor/foreman would be as follows -
"The present supervisors would revert to their former role and
duties as foreman. It shall be accepted that these people
shall as part of their normal duties carry out work in
accordance with normal industrial practice, i.e. to cover for
short term unauthorised absenteeism such as illness or other
emergency periods. It is, however, not the company's
intention to utilise these people to fully replace any
individual general worker. The roles of the foremen shall be
reviewed as necessary by the IPC".
3. This arrangement worked reasonably well up until approximately
October, 1986. The Union claimed that the foremen as well as
management were carrying out general operative duties not proper
to them, and that Management had introduced a new category of
worker called a "shift leader" which was in breach of the
agreement. The idea behind this category was to introduce an
intermediary type position - a worker with supervisory and general
operative functions.
4. The matter was referred to the I.P.C. who stated inter alia -
"I see the individuals employed in this position essentially
as non working foremen, planning, managing, co-ordinating,
motivating and directing the resources for which they are
responsible. I also see them becoming involved in the work
of operatives on occasions. Examples of such would be -
(i) standing in for someone who is taking a break
(ii) lending some muscle
(iii) covering for a key absentee where time is pressing,
while every effort is made to find a replacement.
Activities such as those described in (i) and (ii) above
would only be undertaken where the foreman was specifically
requested by the operatives to become involved. Essentially
I see these activities as lending assistance rather than a
direct involvement in the work itself".
4. With regard to the question of shift leader, the I.P.C. while
noting that this was not covered by the original agreement
considered that the Company was justified in introducing the post.
5. The Union accepted the I.P.C. findings about the role of
foremen and wants the Company to adhere to them but had
reservations about the post of shift leader. The I.P.C.
subsequently clarified its findings by telex to the effect that
supervisors were not precluded from becoming involved in the work
itself where time was pressing regardless of whether they were
requested to do so by the operatives. This was rejected by the
Union as inconsistent with the original findings.
6. A number of meetings were held between the parties but they
failed to resolve the issue. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 4th August, 1987. A
conciliation conference was held on 20th October, 1987. As no
agreement was possible both parties agreed to refer the matter to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour
Court hearing was held in Cavan on 13th January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company is in breach of the 1982 agreement which was
subsequently verified by the I.P.C.
2. The Company has shown no inclination to take a
conciliatory line on this matter and has attempted to justify
their repeated breach of agreement. Not alone are they in
breach of the 1982 Agreement by requiring supervisors to work
unnecessarily, but they have exacerbated the problem by
Management personnel performing general operative duties.
The introduction of the "shift leader" is seen by production
staff to be an attempt to circumnavigate the overall problem
of supervisors working and is not acceptable.
3. The Union holds that, with proper and adequate manning,
there is no reason why the 1982 Agreement cannot suffice.
There are no difficulties regarding flexibility of labour.
Therefore, priority can be given to any function by moving
the required number of staff to wherever needed.
4. The Union request the Court to confirm that the Company
must abide by the 1982 Agreement and that any proposed
variations or alterations to same must be subject to prior
discussion and agreement with the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has broadly speaking attempted to adhere to
the 1982 agreement but circumstances mainly economic ones
(details supplied to the Court) have demanded a greater
degree of flexibility to operate within the terms of that
agreement than are being offered by the Union.
2. The plant has suffered an absenteeism rate of up to 15%
on occasion and averaged 10 to 11% during last year. This
factor alone makes production targets impossible to meet and
it is the Company's contention that supervisors intervention
is vital at times to help meet targets.
3. The average number of people that supervisors oversee is
only 14. Their present functions which involve organising
the shift, going through schedules with hose makers, checking
raw material and machine availability, following through with
ancillary operations and periodically during the shift
checking on schedules relating to targets. These functions
along with a small number of others do not, in management's
view, constitute a full shift's work and therefore do not
justify the very large cost pertaining to them. A supervisor
costs the Company in the region of #20,000 per annum. The
Company considers that such a cost must be recouped through
the full utilisation of such personnel.
4. The operatives employed by Alfa Cavan Ltd are well
trained operatives who do not require the same level of
supervision as for example a younger, more inexperienced,
workforce would.
5. It is unacceptable tothe Company that the supervisor in
the warehouse who only oversees two general operatives should
be restricted from becoming involved in the normal day to day
running of that department when he has time available to him
following the carrying out of his normal functions as a
supervisor.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. It seems clear to the Court that in the present circumstances
obtaining in the Company it is essential that priority must be
given to efficiency in production. The Court therefore recommends
that the workers accept that where necessary or where time is
available outside their normal supervisory function, supervisors
should assist on the shop floor to maximise out put and increase
the efficiency of the plant. The Company on the other hand should
monitor the time so spent to ensure that when work for a full time
operative becomes available, such operative will be re-employed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th February, 1988 John O'Connell
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman