Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88601 Case Number: LCR12076 Section / Act: S67 Parties: S.P.S. INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (SHANNON) - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of four workers concerning the interpretation of an agreement on work practices.
Recommendation:
5. It is clear from the 'Minutes of the Meeting' held in April,
1986, that there was no agreement on the question which is now
before the Court.
The Unions took one position and the Company another.
The fact that the Company did not pursue the matter until 1988,
does not confer any right on the employees to refuse to carry out
the disputed work, as management had clearly indicated that it was
not accepting the Unions' case.
As it is agreed that the work in dispute is covered within the job
description of the workers concerned, the Court recommends that
they now agree to work the product in dispute.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88601 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12076
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: S.P.S. INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (SHANNON)
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of four workers concerning the
interpretation of an agreement on work practices.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures high strength industrial fasteners
and precision tooling for the engineering and automotive industry.
In 1985, arising from the introduction of new equipment and
products in the fastner plant, the Company carried out a review of
jobs within the area and drew up new job descriptions. A number
of workers were subsequently upgraded from grade 5 to grade 4,
with a requirement to run the full product range. However, five
operatives who were already on grade 4 and who had not been
engaged in the production of product over 3/4" or M20 diameter
refused to run product over that size. As the Company did not
require such production at the time, both sides agreed to differ
with a right to discuss the issue at a later stage. In February,
1988, the Company wished to produce a product over 3/4" diameter
and requested the workers concerned to undertake the task. The
workers objected on the basis that the Company had already agreed
not to require them to do such work. The Company disputed this.
It was agreed that the work would be carried out under protest,
pending the resolution of the issue through procedures. On 30th
May, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. At a conciliation conference held on 22nd June,
1988, the Unions referred to a Company minute of 1986,
(Appendix 1) arguing that the Company had agreed not to require
the workers to produce products over 3/4" diameter. The Company
maintained that there was no such agreement and that the sides had
agreed to differ on the matter. As no agreement could be reached
the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 2nd August, 1988,
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
matter on 21st September, 1988, in Limerick.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company entered into an agreement on productivity
which allows five operators to remain within certain sizes of
production. To reinforce their view, the Company outlined
future restrictions they could foresee for these five
operators in the areas of overtime and promotion. The Company
also envisaged the need to have all other operators work the
required sizes to a maximum of 1" diameter.
2. During discussions with the Company the Unions proposed
three options as follows:-
- that the workers concerned be instructed to produce
the larger sizes sought or be disciplined,
- that the Company make a once-off payment to buy out
the Company's minutes, wherein the Company is seen to
agree to the workers' position.
- that the Company find other workers within the plant
to produce the larger sizes.
The Company rejected all three options.
3. The Unions believe the second option is the most
appropriate, in that it would not interfere with normal
procedures. The Unions have made it clear that this is not
productivity but a payment for the removal of a restriction
within an internal management memo of the minutes of a
meeting.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A job description covering the full range of
products/equipment was accepted and implemented for the
particular section. There is a requirement for all personnel
in the section to run the products. It is not feasible to
have some operators opting out of responsibility to run
specific products.
2. There is no significant change in job requirement to run
larger sizes. In fact the same equipment covers a variation
in diameters from 1/4" to 1". The workers in question had
relinquished some of the previous requirements of their jobs
as a quid pro quo, for example, secondary operations.
3. The Company operates in a very competitive environment.
It is essential for survival to react to customer needs.
Provision of the full range of products is an integral part of
the Company's competitiveness.
4. 4. Concession of a monetary payment in this case would lead
to consequential claims from other sections and would
establish an unacceptable precedent of payment for normal
ongoing change. This would undermine competitiveness and
damage local management's ability to attract continued
investment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is clear from the 'Minutes of the Meeting' held in April,
1986, that there was no agreement on the question which is now
before the Court.
The Unions took one position and the Company another.
The fact that the Company did not pursue the matter until 1988,
does not confer any right on the employees to refuse to carry out
the disputed work, as management had clearly indicated that it was
not accepting the Unions' case.
As it is agreed that the work in dispute is covered within the job
description of the workers concerned, the Court recommends that
they now agree to work the product in dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John M. Horgan
___21st___October,___1988. _________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Chairman
APPENDIX I
Extract from Minutes of Meeting held in April, 1986.
'....Existing Grade 4 operators who have decided to confine
themselves to the Facing Section will not run produce
over 3/4" or M20 Dia.
It was pointed out that this refusal could inhibit their
future development as prospective setters and limit
their availability for overtime.
Both sides agreed to differ, the right being reserved to
open discussion on this at a later stage....'