Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8962 Case Number: LCR12337 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH ALE BREWERIES (SALES) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim for compensation for handling stainless steel kegs.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the change-over to stainless steel kegs
does not warrant the payment of compensation.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8962 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12337
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH ALE BREWERIES (SALES) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for handling stainless steel kegs.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1987, the Company was informed by Harp Ireland
that, from the 26th October, Harp products would be kegged in
stainless steel kegs rather than aluminium ones (Harp Ireland
products account for a large proportion of the Company's contract
business). At a local level meeting on the 2nd November, 1987,
the Unions expressed concern in regard to the safety aspects of
handling/transporting these new kegs. Following several other
local level meetings plus a review of the safety aspects of the
loading/unloading of the new kegs (details supplied to the Court),
the Unions lodged a claim for a once-off compensatory payment of
#1,000 nett per worker in November, 1988. Management rejected the
claim and the issue was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 13th December, 1988. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference on the 25th January and on
the 1st February, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the
9th March, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The replacement of the aluminium keg by the stainless
steel keg has been steadily continuing since 1987 and now
accounts for about 70 per cent of the kegs in the depot. The
change-over results in a substantial and on-going saving for
the Company. The cost of the new keg alone is approximately
#40 per keg cheaper than the aluminium one.
3. 2. The aluminium keg was very prone to breaking, leaking,
etc, and the weekly cost to the Company of repair work was in
five figures. The new keg is a long-life keg and does not
need to be repaired and is also easier to clean which
represents more savings to the Company. Therefore, it can be
clearly seen that the savings to the Company are very
substantial indeed.
3. The change in kegs has only created problems for the
claimants. Apart from the safety aspect (which is not a
feature of this claim) the new kegs are much more difficult to
handle. The new keg is 5 lbs. heavier and, whilst the Company
will argue that this is a marginal weight difference, it
represents a very significant difference in the weight which
the workers have to handle in the course of a day's work. The
kegs are much more difficult to handle when loading/unloading,
etc. They are slippier and not as flexible in their handling
as the aluminium keg. The difficulties this presents has also
resulted in more work on the road in many cases. Many outlets
that previously stacked the kegs themselves are now insisting
that it be done by the claimants.
4. It is wrong for the Company to suggest that the
change-over has meant little or no change for the workers
concerned. The Company has and will continue to make big
savings and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that a share
of the savings be given to the workers. The claim for a
once-off nett payment of #1,000 represents a very very small
portion of the savings, especially when viewed against the
additional work involved on an on-going basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Over the years the Company has kegged its products in kegs
of similar volume capacity, but using different designs and
different components. The weights of these differently
designed kegs have varied considerably from U.B.E. to Sankey
to aluminium and now to stainless steel. The increase in the
weight of stainless steel kegs over aluminium kegs is only 3%.
UBE and Sankey kegs were significantly heavier than aluminium
kegs or the new stainless steel kegs. Each of these changes
represented very substantial capital investment. They were
carried out primarily to keep abreast of state of the art
technique to enhance the quality of products at a point of
sale which is vital in a highly competitive business.
2. The change from aluminium to stainless steel kegs forms
only a part of the Company's continuing overall capital
investment in plant and equipment for product enhancement.
The capital cost of a stainless steel keg is the same as for
an aluminium keg.
4. 3. The Company has never made any special payments to its
employees in respect of capital investment for product
enhancement. Prudent capital investment is reflected in the
Company's profits and every employee in the Company is the
beneficiary of a share in profits - this has amounted to 6%
approximately of basic annual earnings for the last three
years.
4. Because of falling sales and profits, the Company had to
embark on a major programme of rationalisation in 1984.
Continuing decline of sales/profits made it necessary to
embark on a survival plan in 1986. It was necessary to extend
this process of rationalisation in plans recently announced
from now until the end of 1991. The outcome of the decline in
sales leaves the Company with a major embarrassment of spare
capacity in production/packaging plants and in the
distribution fleet resulting in uncompetitively high unit
costs. The result is that the Company plans to reduce its
workforce from 683 to 520 between now and 1991.
5. As recently as the 6th March, 1989 the Ballyfermot Union
representatives were again formally acquainted with the
seriousness of the Company's position. The Company pointed
out that as the Ballyfermot unit cost per keg delivered is
almost double the cost charged by contract hauliers, the
Company and the Unions must agree a means to bridge the gap
internally or face the consequences of closure of the depot
and contracting out of deliveries to contract hauliers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the change-over to stainless steel kegs
does not warrant the payment of compensation.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___7th____April,___1989. _______________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman