Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8815 Case Number: LCR11722 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIDARE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of ten workers, for compensation for changes implemented on a packing line.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8815 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11722
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIDARE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of ten workers, for compensation for changes
implemented on a packing line.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed by Oerlikon Electrodes
(Ireland) Limited, a Company within the Unidare Group, which
manufactures and distributes welding electrodes. In November,
1985, the Company introduced new machinery on the packing line
which resulted in changes in the method of operation and reduced
manning levels. The manning level was originally twelve, it is
currently ten and in future is expected to be six. The Company
paid #61 to each of the workers affected as a "minimum
displacement allowance," in line with the Procedural Agreement for
new plant introduction. The Union, stating that the changes
represented a complete restructuring of operations, sought
compensation of #2,500 per person. The Company rejected the
claim. The matter was referred on 17th September, 1987 to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference held on 23rd October, 1987, failed to resolve the
matter and it was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court.
The hearing took place on 5th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An Industrial Engineer who visited the plant at the
Union's request concluded that the workers remaining after the
changes will be giving a significant increase in productivity
to the Company, that all savings will benefit the Company and
that the workers will be required to be more flexible and to
work harder than previously. He recommended negotiations on a
once-off payment.
2. The workers have been co-operative in the introduction of
these changes. The Union contends that substantial
compensation is justified because of the real changes in work
practice, the real savings and productivity gains accruing to
the Company and the well established precedent for
compensatory payment on the site.
3. The Union supplied details of compensatory payments made
elsewhere on site.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not prepared to concede the Union's claim.
The competitive position of the Company is being continually
eroded and demand has fallen as a result of various factors.
Rationalisation and change are necessary in order to remain
viable. The packaging area was streamlined within this
context.
2. Only two workers have been in any way affected by the
changes. One of these has received a grade increase resulting
in an additional #7 per week approximately. The Company has
paid #61 "displacement allowance" to all packing staff.
Furthermore, no workers have been adversely affected and it
is now easier for the crew to maintain higher bonus earnings
due to fewer fluctuations in work throughput. Generous
redundancy terms were also received by those who left the
Company.
3. New equipment has eliminated any requirement on workers to
lift heavy weights.
4. A recent report by an independent firm of consultants has
indicated that lump sum payments for working on new equipment
should not be made.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
______________________
1st March, 1988. Deputy Chairman
A.K./J.C.