Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8840 Case Number: LCR11698 Section / Act: S67 Parties: THERMO KING EUROPE - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of the industrial engineering technique of M.O.S.T. (Maynard Operation Sequence Technique).
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, is of the view that the proposals put forward by the
Industrial Relations Officer at the Conciliation Conference held
on 17th December, 1987, should be accepted by the parties.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8840 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11698
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: THERMO KING EUROPE
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of the industrial
engineering technique of M.O.S.T. (Maynard Operation Sequence
Technique).
BACKGROUND:
2. In early 1986 the Company decided to use M.O.S.T. to establish
time standards. M.O.S.T. is a synthetic industrial engineering
technique which uses video equipment to record work activity.
3. The Union agreed to the introduction of the method for an
initial trial period of 6 months provided the Company fulfilled
the following conditions -
1. The system to be used on a 6 months' trial basis.
2. Only trained Operators were to be used during M.O.S.T.
studies.
3. Any study taken would have to have sufficient cycle time.
4. Any videos which were taken were to be stored.
5. If computer software was introduced at any stage, this
would have to be discussed in advance.
6. All Shop Stewards to receive an Appreciation Training
Course on M.O.S.T.
7. A further three nominated Shop Stewards to receive an
in-depth training course.
4. The Company agreed to these conditions and the trial period
went ahead from April to October, 1987. At the end of the trial
period the Company maintained that they had not got full use of
the method and requested an extension of the trial period. The
Union refused to accede to the request on the basis that the
Company had not complied with all the conditions as outlined
above, and that there was no benefit in this particular method of
evaluating particular jobs.
5. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 20th October, 1987. A Conciliation Conference was
held on 17th December, 1987. At the Conciliation Conference both
parties agreed to consider the following proposals put forward by
the Industrial Relations Officer -
(i) That the 3 representatives nominated by the Union would
attend a course due to commence in January, 1988.
(ii) that on completion of the course a 6 month trial of the
video system commence.
(iii) that the system be not used pending (ii).
6. The Union subsequently rejected the proposals and both parties
agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Galway on the 27th
January, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. In November, 1984, the Company and Union agreed that use
of synthetic data would be made when establishing work
standards. M.O.S.T. is a method which uses synthetic data
and it is the Company's view, therefore, that the Union is
being unreasonable in its approach. This is particularly
true given that at any stage the Union may refer any work
standard carried out to its own Industrial Engineering expert
or the I.P.C.
2. The Company believes that it has acted reasonably at all
stages of this dispute. It is very concerned that the
Union's approach is obstructionist, as the Company has done
everything possible to allay the fears and reservations
expressed. Copies of the videos have been shown to the shop
steward and will be available to the Court. The Company
considers that the use of the video cameras is in accordance
with normal work measurement techniques and is specifically
covered by the 1984 Agreement and the Company would ask the
Court to recommend acceptance of the technique on an on-going
basis and without the trial period recommended by the
Conciliation Officer.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company did not fulfil all the agreed conditions for
the introduction of the method for the trial period. In
particular the shop stewards did not receive the training in
M.O.S.T. There was also disagreement over some of the other
items (details supplied to the Court).
2. After the six months' period had elapsed and some
evaluation carried out, the shop floor representatives, after
consultation with their members, were of the opinion that the
system as such was of no use other than to be, "a spy in the
cab". The Company has used the video recorder to record men
at work which in actual fact had nothing at all to do with
the time study and the workers are of the opinion that this
could be used and would be used for disciplinary purposes in
the future. They could see no benefit whatsoever with
regards to the carrying out of time study on particular jobs.
For that reason they are not prepared to agree to the
introduction of this programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, is of the view that the proposals put forward by the
Industrial Relations Officer at the Conciliation Conference held
on 17th December, 1987, should be accepted by the parties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd February, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman