Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD888 Case Number: LCR11714 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CADBURY IRELAND PLC - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Company for the introduction of interchangeable shift and the proposed amalgamation of the Company's Mikrovaerk plants, effecting 6 workers.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that as it understands the terms of the
Company/Union agreement regarding ongoing change, the changes
required by the Company are sustainable without any compensation
being paid to the specific group involved in the proposed change,
other than such payments as are specified in the above agreement.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions'
claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD888 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11714
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND plc
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Company for the introduction of interchangeable
shift and the proposed amalgamation of the Company's Mikrovaerk
plants, effecting 6 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Mikrovaerks are two pieces of plant situated side by side
which currently operate separate shifts. The Company's intention
is that the operators of both plants should be totally flexible to
work on one or the other as required, i.e. that the two pieces of
plant be considered one production unit. The Company believes
that this change is essential, in that treating the two plants as
separate is giving rise to an unacceptable high level of shift
change which is hampering the efficiency and cost effectiveness of
the plant. The Company also maintains that it restricts its
ability to respond to changing market requirements and
necessitates carrying additional stock levels to provide for the
lead-in time involved in changing shifts. The Company regards the
proposed change as normal ongoing change in the context of a 1981
Company/Union Agreement which states:-
"No additional special payments will be made to the
individuals involved in the changes as it is intended that
all employees should benefit from productivity in the form
of high rates of pay and better conditions of employment.
Otherwise those employees who have had a full work load on a
stable plant for many years and thus have been contributing
highly, would not benefit".
The Company says that since the introduction of this agreement,
major changes have been introduced all over the factory. These
have been compensated for through the maintenance of very high 40
hour rates and a very competitive fringe benefit package. In
addition, in 1984, all employees received a special increase on
the basis of continued acceptance of the Agreement.
3. The Unions are not completely against the Company's proposals,
the need for change is recognised. However, they disagree that
the Company's proposal is normal ongoing change. As agreement
could not be reached at local level the matter was referred on 6th
July, 1987, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a
conciliation conference held on 20th November, 1987, the Unions
put forward the following proposals:-
- Each pair of operators would do 4 months on days
and 8 months on shift.
- Each operator would qualify for a 40 hour payment
once a year.
- A lump sum payment of #200 to be paid to each
worker on the plant.
As the workers concerned would be shift workers for 8 months of
the year, the Unions proposed that there should be no erosion of
the shift guarantee. These proposals were unacceptable to the
Company. As no agreement was possible the matter was referred to
the Labour Court on 7th December, 1987, for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 19th February,
1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The change which is being introduced is no different to
the many changes that have been introduced over the years in
accordance with the Agreement. Therefore, there is no basis
for considering the Unions' claim for compensation or special
arrangements for the operators on the plant.
2. The Company's viability is totally dependent on its
ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness. The
proposed change in this case is all about ensuring the
viability of the product and the future of the jobs that are
dependent on it.
3. Staffing arrangements must be designed to meet the
requirements of the plant. This is essential for the
efficient running of the factory. In this case the staffing
arrangements are seriously effecting the efficiency of the
plant and must be adjusted to meet the changing requirements.
4. Because of the similarity of the plants and their close
proximity, the effect of the change on the operators is
minimal and causes little or no inconvenience or loss to them.
Up to 1985, the Company had a bonus scheme under which
performance on the two plants was considered separately. The
Company recognised that at that time there would have been
difficulties in amalgamating the teams however there is no
longer any difficulty.
5. The type of flexibility being sought from the Mikrovaerk
operators is already in operation by the women on the wrapping
end of this plant. There the teams of people on the back
shift move between the plants as required. Changing market
requirements in relation to other products has also required
the Company to seek greater flexibility on these plants to
cope with the changes. This increased flexibility has been
introduced on these plants in accordance with the agreement
and no special arrangements made.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company want the workers to move from one plant to
the other irrespective of the effects on the seniority
groupings. The seniority system in the Company has always
worked on the basis of seniority on the particular plant. The
amalgamation of the two plants would cut across this jealously
guarded seniority agreement, not to mention the loss of jobs
to some workers in the Mikrovaerk area. There would also be
knock-on effects on the workers job progression as they moved
out of the plant block.
2. There is no provision in the Company/Union Agreement for
the amalgamation of plants. The agreement was specifically
intended to keep individual plants up-dated with new
technology, machine speeds, etc.... The Company's Industrial
Engineers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions work study
department have both performed studies on ongoing changes.
They have never studied plant amalgamations, for the simple
reason there were never any such amalgamations. This is a
totally new concept, with the working arrangements being
introduced by the Company and would create a precious
precedent with some job losses.
3. The main thrust in the Company's argument in looking for
the changes is to improve its efficiency and competitiveness.
The Unions are not opposed to these aspirations. However,
given that it is the workers in the Mikrovaerk area who are
being requested to work the unsocial hours, surely it is not
too much to ask that their aspirations be met.
4. The Union proposals would give the Company significant
savings, (in excess of #25,000 per annum), and enhanced
working arrangements. There would be complete flexibility and
interchangeable arrangements between the plants. The Company
would also get the extra tonnage they require, without any
industrial unrest. These proposals were made in good faith,
despite the fact that they ran contrary to the seniority
agreement. The Unions believe that the only way forward is
for a tangible offer to be made by the Company to the workers
concerned, on the basis of the Unions proposals.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that as it understands the terms of the
Company/Union agreement regarding ongoing change, the changes
required by the Company are sustainable without any compensation
being paid to the specific group involved in the proposed change,
other than such payments as are specified in the above agreement.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions'
claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
----------------
25th February, 1988.
B. O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman