Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87908 Case Number: LCR11710 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GERNORD LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
27th Wage Round negotiations.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Company and the Union resume
negotiations with a view to reaching agreement on the 27th wage
round and, in the meantime, the Company's proposals in relation to
lunchtime calender operation and the reduction of manning in the
extruder team should be implemented on a trial basis.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87908 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11710
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GERNORD LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 27th Wage Round negotiations.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 65 workers in the manufacture of PVC floor
covering. The 26th wage round expired for forty one factory
operatives on 31st July, 1987. On 11th September, 1987 the Union,
on their behalf, served a claim on the Company for a six per cent
increase for twelve months commencing 1st August, 1987 and an
increase in the service pay increment to #2. The Company offered
an increase of three per cent which was negotiable subject to the
elimination of supplementary labour on the calender operation at
lunch time and the reduction of one man on the extruder team.
This offer was rejected by the Union which sought the
determination of the manning levels by a study of the work content
in the two operations. As management would not agree to this the
Union sought to have the original wage round claim dealt with in
isolation. As no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No basis for a settlement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on 17th November, 1987 and the matter was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
investigation into the dispute was held in Dundalk on 16th
February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim under the 27th round is a modest and
realistic one. The Company insisted on introducing the
question of manning levels into the negotiations. The Union
considers that these cannot be addressed within the framework
of the 27th round.
2. While the workers were not totally opposed to the
concept of a package, they felt that the manning levels could
only be determined by a study of the work content in the two
operations. However, the Company was adamant that no study
would be undertaken by anybody to determine the manning levels
issue. The Union, therefore, sought that the original claim
should be dealt with in isolation.
3. The Company's offer of 3% is not acceptable to the
workers.
4. The Company's attitude to the manning level issue has
not been conducive to good industrial relations.
5. The Union has not made any productivity claim in
relation to the manning levels as no productivity has been
established.
6. The hopper vibrator has not solved the problem of
jamming, especially with some of the formulations used.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company at all times clearly indicated a willingness
to enhance its offer provided the two items it sought are
conceded.
2. Since the installation of the hopper vibrator there is
no need for an operator standing by to clear it. However, the
Company acknowledges that on certain, but infrequently used
formulations, powder jamming may occur and has stated that
management "will supplement the teams with additional
manpower" when necessary. There is no need for measurement to
establish work content and feasibility as there is no work for
the operator to do.
3. It is inappropriate to provide a relief for tea and
toilet breaks for the calender lunchtime relief team due to
the length of time involved (30 minutes). Measurement will
not resolve the issue here. Management are prepared to act
reasonably if any difficulty is encountered with this change.
4. This type of tidy-up has been a feature of past wage
round negotiations. The Company cannot tolerate loose work
practices. There are no savings accruing to the Company as a
result of these changes and, therefore, no grounds for any
productivity claim. Output, numbers employed and attendance
hours will remain unaltered. When the Company does seek
changes which affect these factors it is quite prepared to
negotiate such changes on a productivity basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Company and the Union resume
negotiations with a view to reaching agreement on the 27th wage
round and, in the meantime, the Company's proposals in relation to
lunchtime calender operation and the reduction of manning in the
extruder team should be implemented on a trial basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
24th February, 1988 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman