Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88737 Case Number: LCR12117 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NORTH WALL WAREHOUSING COMPANY LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the interpretation of a Productivity Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the movement of pallets, which
is the subject of this dispute, is covered by Clauses 5.4 and 5.8
of the 1987 Agreement. However, due to the lack of clarity on
this point in the 1987 Agreement, the Court recommends that the
Company pay a sum of #100 gross to each of the claimants in full
settlement of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88737 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12117
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NORTH WALL WAREHOUSING COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the interpretation of a
Productivity Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to a shortage of space in the Company's North Wall
warehouse, it was decided in March, 1988 to move 150 pallet loads
of products to another warehouse in Tallaght. This type of work
had previously been performed by the order assembly team as per a
1981 Productivity Agreement, and for this 19 minutes per pallet
was the agreed standard. The work, however, was carried out by
one fork-lift driver, to marshal the goods and one loader to load
the vehicle. The Company claimed that the 1981 agreement had been
superseded by a more recent (1987) productivity agreement based on
an Irish Productivity Centre (I.P.C.) report (see Appendix). The
Union disagreed that the work had been covered in the report,
however, during discussions offered to renegotiate a handling time
for the throughput of the product by the order assembly team. As
agreement could not be reached at local level the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 12th
May, 1988. No agreement was reached at conciliation conferences
held on 17th June and 13th September, 1988, and the issue was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 20th October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believes that this particular operation, which
occurs perhaps twice in the year, was not studied by the
I.P.C. in 1987, and as a result the 1981 Agreement still
stands. Whilst the Union disagrees with managements
contention that it is covered in the 1987 I.P.C. report, it is
prepared to renegotiate a time for handling throughput of the
product by the order assembly team.
3. 2. If it is covered in the I.P.C. report, then the only
relevant section is section 5.2. i.e. it can only be covered
on the basis that it is a "city delivery" and evaluated
accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The operation is a stock transfer involving no 'order' to
customers. The product is moved out and then returns for
assembly and dispatch to the customer. Paying the order
assembly team for this operation would result in them
receiving double payment. It is more efficient to have the
operation carried out by the fork-lift driver and loader.
2. The assembly team has no input into the operation and
therefore no time or money should be granted for work not
performed. The work values apply to the operation are 5.4 and
5.8.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the movement of pallets, which
is the subject of this dispute, is covered by Clauses 5.4 and 5.8
of the 1987 Agreement. However, due to the lack of clarity on
this point in the 1987 Agreement, the Court recommends that the
Company pay a sum of #100 gross to each of the claimants in full
settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___11th___November,__1988. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX I
The following work values were obtained from the study of the
warehouse operations:-
1. Order Assembly - Country (exclusive of full pallets)
413 Cases per Standard Hour.
2. Order Assembly - City (inclusive of full pallets)
260 Cases per Standard Hour.
3. Unload Vehicles - Intake.
2.86 SM's per Pallet. 21 an Hour.
4. Loading Out - North Wall.
2.83 SM's per Pallet. 21 an Hour.
5. Pallets into and out of fridge.
Additional 2.27 SM's per pallet.
6. Fork Truck. Put pallets into stock.
2.0 SM's per pallet. 30 an Hour.
7. Fork Truck. Feed picking lines.
2.43 SM's per pallet. 25 an Hour.
8. Fork Truck. Run full pallets to Load Assembly Area.
2.44 SM's per pallet. 25 an Hour.
9. Load from Loading Bank.
1.21 SM's per pallet.