Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87397 Case Number: LCR11663 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BOART EUROPE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of multi-operation clause.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and having visited the plant to see the operations in
question is of the opinion that the Company's interpretation of
the agreement in respect of the machines at issue is correct, on
the basis, of the existence of similar operations, already so
designated within the plant. The Court is also of the opinion
that the Unions definition of hand work in this instance seems too
narrow and in the context of existing practice in the plant would
seem to apply mainly to work which requires the continuous
physical presence of the operator to ensure that the work is
performed to specification. The Court therefore recommends in
support of the management's interpretation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87397 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11663
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BOART EUROPE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of multi-operation
clause.
BACKGROUND:
2. The parties are in dispute over a difference of interpretation
of clause 14(1) of the Company/Union agreement concerning
multi-machine operation which states:
"Where multi-machine operations are proved feasible by Work
Study, the Company has the right to decide on the number,
variations and location of these operations without
restriction. Multi-Machine operations excludes normal hand
machines and hand work. The Company agrees to inform the
Union of any new multi-machine proposals being introduced, but
in the event of any disagreements the multi-machining will go
ahead whilst discussions are taking place."
The difference of interpretation arises about two machines namely
Production Mills (PM3) and a Bridgeport Mill. In 1986 the Company
informed the Union that it intended to operate these two machines
in a multi-machine operation. The Union objected to the Company's
action and requested that its industrial engineer be allowed
examine the machine and state whether it should be included or
excluded under clause 14(1). The Company was not agreeable to
this but allowed the Union's industrial engineer carry out a
feasibility study. This multi-operation has been worked under
protest since April, 1986 pending a final resolution of the
dispute. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and
on 18th November, 1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 3rd March, 1987 but no agreement was reached. On 14th May,
1987 the case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 29th
September, 1987 in Limerick. On 16th December, 1987 the Court
inspected the operation at issue along with other multi-machine
operations. The Court was accompanied on its inspection by a
representative of each of the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the 1978 agreement multi-operations were
specifically named. Clause 14(1) did not name the operations
to be included in the future but very specifically excluded
hand machines, whether the operation proved feasible or not
was inmaterial.
2. The Company have never disagreed that the machine is a
hand operated machine and not an automatic. It has argued
that the operation is feasible and should be classed as a
multi-operation. If the machine is a hand operated one it is
specifically excluded under clause 14(1) and the feasibility
of the operation does not enter into the discussion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot understand the Union's objection to the
introduction of this particular multi machine operation since
a number of similar multi operations involving automatic and
non-automatic machines have been in operation in the Company
for a number of years. Based on historical fact the Company
believes its interpretation of the agreement is correct.
2. If the Court accepts the Union's most recent
interpretation of the agreement then a considerable number of
the Company's existing multi-machine operations would be
brought into question. Discontinuation of these multi-machine
operations would result in an immediate increase in the cost
to the Company of producing its products with a consequential
deterioration in its competitive position. It is imperative
that the Company continues to improve its cost competitiveness
in the future.
3. Multi-machine operations benefit the workers as additional
payments are made for such operations. Multi machine
operations have existed in the Company for many years and
agreements recognise their existence.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and having visited the plant to see the operations in
question is of the opinion that the Company's interpretation of
the agreement in respect of the machines at issue is correct, on
the basis, of the existence of similar operations, already so
designated within the plant. The Court is also of the opinion
that the Unions definition of hand work in this instance seems too
narrow and in the context of existing practice in the plant would
seem to apply mainly to work which requires the continuous
physical presence of the operator to ensure that the work is
performed to specification. The Court therefore recommends in
support of the management's interpretation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.