Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88790 Case Number: LCR12134 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH GLASS PLC - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for an increase in manning levels in two areas.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that in relation to the general cleaners, a
temporary replacement should be provided in instances where an
absence of five weeks or more occurs. The Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim in relation to Process
Feedermen.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88790 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12134
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH GLASS PLC
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in manning levels in two areas.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to manning levels in general cleaning and
in the process feedermen area. No agreement being reached at
local level, the matters were referred, on 20th June, 1988, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 25th July, 1988 at which a settlement was
not reached. In October, 1988 the parties sought a full Court
hearing and the matter was referred to the Court on 17th October,
1988. The hearing took place on 3rd November, 1988.
(A) Cleaning Area
3. BACKGROUND
The Union contends that the Company is not adhering to the Working
Agreement of February, 1988. The agreement provides for a manning
level of three in the general cleaning area, with a self cover
arrangement whereby manning can be reduced to two. A situation
has arisen where one worker has been on long term sick absence in
this area. The Union is seeking to have a minimum of three
workers on cleaning duties at all times. The Company has proposed
to replace the absent worker on an interim basis but this is not
acceptable to the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The existing agreement provides for a manning level of
three, with a minimum cover of two in cases of absence. The
Company has interpreted this as applying in cases of long term
illness while the Union contends that this part of the
agreement was intended to apply in cases of short term absence
only.
2. The workload requires three people except in cases of
short term absence. Less than this number results in an
unacceptable lowering of cleaning standards.
3. The Company has offered to provide an interim replacement
for the worker who is currently on long term sick leave, but,
while this resolves the immediate issue, it does not address
the general problem.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The 1983 rationalisation agreement provided for three
cleaners doing all work relative to locker rooms, toilets etc.
and self covering down to two. Further rationalisation was
proposed by the Company in 1987 and provided for a reduction
of staff from three to two in this grade. However, no
agreement was reached in respect of these proposals and the
Company in January, 1988 settled for no change to the original
agreement of 1983.
2. The Company does not accept that it is necessary to have
three people on cleaning duties and for that reason sought to
reduce from three to two. The Company is seeking to have the
recent agreement honoured.
(B) PROCESS FEEDERMEN
6. BACKGROUND:
In 1983 the Company merged three grades into one, that of process
feederman, in which six people work. Two of the six men are
designated as senior men and the Company has recently nominated
one of these men to deputise for the process feedermen's foreman
in the foreman's absence. The 1983 Agreement provides for self
covering amongst the six until the numbers drop below five. The
Union is now claiming that the worker who deputises for the
foreman should be replaced when he does so. The Company rejects
the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The other five workers do not object to the sixth worker
being chosen to deputise for the foreman when necessary.
However, they do object to the reduction of the manning level
from six to five on such occasions. The Union has no
agreement with the Company regarding its members covering for
members of management without replacement, and seeks a
replacement for this worker when he deputises for the foreman.
2. In 1987 a dispute arose regarding non replacement of one
person on long term sick absence in this area. A Rights
Commissioner in that case, recommended that if a member of the
team is out ill for five weeks or more, then he should be
temporarily replaced.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The particular worker was appointed to deputise for the
foreman so that, in the foreman's absence, a decision could be
made quickly in relation to situations which arise on the
production floor. It was a formalisation of the existing
practice.
2. The additional responsibility of deputising for the
foreman does not require the worker concerned to spend any
additional time away from the shop floor (details supplied).
It is not necessary, therefore to provide a replacement for
him at any time.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that in relation to the general cleaners, a
temporary replacement should be provided in instances where an
absence of five weeks or more occurs. The Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim in relation to Process
Feedermen.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
______________________
28th November, 1988. Deputy Chairman
A.K./J.C.