Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87914 Case Number: LCR11660 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GATEAUX LIMITED - and - BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 3 bakers for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has noted that the use of the 'travelling oven' was an
alternative to the likely loss of the product. In addition, the
change was not made as part of a rationalisation plan in which
there were cost benefits. Accordingly, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87914 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11660
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GATEAUX LIMITED
and
BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 3 bakers for compensation for
loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The 3 bakers concerned, two ovens men and a mixer, were
involved in the baking of a particular product. The product has
been in production for 20 years and was baked in a 'peel oven'.
Following a number of complaints from the Company's main customer
about the quality of the product, the customer indicated that it
would drop the product completely unless the quality improved and
it was baked in a 'travelling oven'. The change resulted in a
reduction in earnings for the 3 bakers concerned. The 'peel oven'
has a smaller output and there is no less overtime for the 3
bakers. The Union lodged a claim for compensation for the loss of
earnings, which it estimates to be #1,275 per man. The Company
rejected the claim on the basis that the forced change to the
'travelling oven' had increased unit costs and there was no
likelihood of passing on a price increase. As a settlement could
not be reached at local level, the matter was referred on 21st
October, 1987, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Agreement could not be achieved at a conciliation conference held
on 12th November, 1987, and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court on 26th November, 1987, for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 15th January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union disagrees with the Company's contention that it
costs more to bake the product in the travelling oven. Less
staff are required to man the travelling oven than are needed
for the peel oven, (details provided to the Court). The
production units per hour of the product have been doubled as
a result of the change.
2. The Union submits that the changes in production method
have and will continue to make major on-going savings for the
Company and have and will continue to impose substantial
losses of overtime earnings for the 3 bakers. The bakers have
lost #29.75 per day for 5 weeks and #21.25 per day for 5
weeks, totalling #1,275 per man. Accordingly, the Union
believes substantial compensation is fair and justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Workers in all areas of the Company have suffered a drop
in earnings and others have lost employment as a result of a
decline in sales and over the last number of years.
2. There has been a substantial loss of production from the
'peel oven' as a result of a decrease in sales on other 'peel
oven' lines and in some cases a complete discontinuation of
the product.
3. The Company were given an ultimatum, either to produce the
product as the customer required it or else the cutomer would
no longer be prepared to purchase the product. This was
something outside the Company's control. It now costs more to
produce the product as a result of the change and unless the
Company can get a price increase it will not be able to
continue producing this product after 1988.
4. The Union has indicated that had the Company lost the
product by refusing to transfer it from the 'peel ovens' to
the 'travelling oven,' it would not now be faced with this
claim. It is merely because the Company transferred the
product from one set of ovens to another, instead of
discontinuing the product, that the claim has been made.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has noted that the use of the 'travelling oven' was an
alternative to the likely loss of the product. In addition, the
change was not made as part of a rationalisation plan in which
there were cost benefits. Accordingly, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_____________________
29th January, 1988
B.O'N/J.C. Deputy Chairman