Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88850 Case Number: LCR12340 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Grievances concerning the 1987 Plant Agreement (Return to Work Agreement).
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered submissions and after
discussions with the parties, has come to the conclusion that in
the current climate of industrial relations in the plant, no
amendment of the 1987 'Return to Work Agreement' is warranted,
particularly in the light of the evidence produced under the
provisions of Recommendation 11444 on the working of the Agreement
over a period of almost one year. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the amendments sought in the Union's claim
as detailed in its case of the 14th December, 1988.
The Court is still concerned at the apparent lack of confidence
between Union and Management representatives which inhibits their
ability to arrive at direct agreement on many matters. However,
until this situation changes, the Court will be prepared to
consider issues as they arise. Insofar as only a brief mention
was made of the further issues raised at the hearing of the 15th
February and as Union representatives wished to make further
verbal submissions, the Court will arrange that a further hearing
on these issues will take place shortly.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88850 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12340
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Grievances concerning the 1987 Plant Agreement (Return to Work
Agreement).
BACKGROUND:
2. Following an industrial dispute in the Company in December,
1986 and January, 1987, one of the Labour Court's Industrial
Relations Officers put forward proposals for the resumption of
work. These proposals amended the then existing Plant Agreement
and became known as the Return to Work Agreement.* They were
subsequently accepted by both sides as a means of settling the
dispute and normal work was resumed.
Since then however, several disputes have arisen concerning the
working of the Agreement which resulted in the Labour Court's
intervention on three occasions (LCR's 11444, 11906 and 11907
refer). In June, 1988, the Union raised further grievances with
the Company. These related mainly to a review of bonus earnings
and to the Company's contention that it had the right to carry out
what the Union called "blanket time studies." The bonus payments
start from a base of 100% to 180%. When a worker's performance
exceeds 180% that job becomes the subject of a work study. The
Company maintains that there is a strong similarity between all
the functions carried out by each operative and that this gives it
the right to study all the jobs when one job exceeds 180%.
* See Appendix 1.
The Union objects to this. Following the failure of local level
discussions, the Union referred the matter to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 17th August, 1988. No progress
was made at a conciliation conference on the 26th October
(earliest suitable date) and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 2nd November.
3. At a Court hearing in Galway on the 14th December, the parties
were requested to meet to clarify what issues were before the
Court. A local level meeting was held on the 20th December. The
Union put forward its position as being that it wanted a review of
the Return to Work Agreement along the following lines:-
- compensation for loss of earnings as a result of the
Return to Work Agreement,
- the return of full average in specified situations,
- set-up times,
- trade union business (payment),
- transfers,
- blanket time studies.
The Company claims that under the terms of LCR11444, these are
inadmissible and is not prepared to re-negotiate any aspect of the
Return to Work Agreement.
4. The Union advised the Court of this situation by letter dated
the 21st December. The Court's Chairman wrote to the Union on the
16th January, 1989, advising of the Court's concern at the
on-going problems in the Plant and advising that following the
adjournment of the hearing of 14th December, 1988, the Court
intended to resume the hearing to investigate all issues
outstanding between the Company and the Union.
A Court hearing was held in Galway on the 15th February, 1989.
The Court had wide-ranging discussions with the parties on all
aspects of the current problems. Because of this the specific
issues that were before the Court on the 14th December, 1988, were
not discussed. It is intended that these will be the subject of a
future Court investigation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered submissions and after
discussions with the parties, has come to the conclusion that in
the current climate of industrial relations in the plant, no
amendment of the 1987 'Return to Work Agreement' is warranted,
particularly in the light of the evidence produced under the
provisions of Recommendation 11444 on the working of the Agreement
over a period of almost one year. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the amendments sought in the Union's claim
as detailed in its case of the 14th December, 1988.
The Court is still concerned at the apparent lack of confidence
between Union and Management representatives which inhibits their
ability to arrive at direct agreement on many matters. However,
until this situation changes, the Court will be prepared to
consider issues as they arise. Insofar as only a brief mention
was made of the further issues raised at the hearing of the 15th
February and as Union representatives wished to make further
verbal submissions, the Court will arrange that a further hearing
on these issues will take place shortly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___7th____April,___1989. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX 1
MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP IRELAND LTD. / I.T.G.W.U.
SETTLEMENT TERMS
1) PLANT AGREEMENT
An amendment to be made to the Plant Agreement because of
misunderstandings of the section on Disputes & Grievance
Procedures:-
Paragraph 2 to read as follows:-
- In the event of any question arising which cannot
be immediately disposed of and which is being
processed in accordance with the Disputes
Procedure, the employee will carry out the
instruction and continue to operate, even under
protest, pending settlement.
2) The undertaking from the Union representative, Union
Committee and employees as returned.
3) TIME STUDY
Work study will be carried out on jobs for the following
reasons:-
a) If a job is new,
b) * If there is a change in method, material or workplace
layout.
c) * If there is a change in machine cycles, or
alterations to tools, jigs, fixtures or equipment.
d) If a complaint is received in the form of a written
restudy request from an operator or his/her
representative.
e) When the performance on a job reaches 180%.
* If the change constitutes 10% or more in (b) and/or
(c) since the last study, the restudy will be carried
out.
4) AVERAGE BONUS
a) A pieceworker transferred to a non-piecework job will
retain his average for the duration of the transfer.
b) A transfer to another piecework job in the operator's
own category will attract a fall-back of 50% of the
individual's average bonus.
A transfer to another piecework job in another
category will attract a fall-back of 75% of the
individual's average bonus.
c) Non-production time arising in the normal course of a
job will be paid at 85% of the individual's average
bonus.
d) End of day clean-up on machines and equipment will be
eliminated. However, clean-up as requested by
Management will be paid at full cumulative average.
e) The present time for set-up and work preparation will
remain pending the outcome of time study (see above).
5. WAGES
An increase of 5% for 8 months with effect from 2.02.1987 and
a further 2 % for 4 months with effect from 2.10.1987.
6. RETURN TO WORK
Thirty to fifty employees will return on 2nd February, 1987.
Every effort will be made to get the entire workforce back by
2nd March, 1987. In the event that this is not possible, the
Company will consult with the Union.
7. There will be no further cost increasing claims for the
duration of this Wage Agreement.
APPENDIX A
Mechanical Department 1. Grinding.
2. Turning (includes turning fitting
edges from Assembly Department).
3. Balancing.
4. Pressing / Straighten / Notch.
5. Drilling / Tapping.
6. Spray Painting.
All above categories to perform - Drilling, Tapping, Notching,
Straightening and Milling.
Assembly Department 7. Single Category.
Stator Department 8. Winding.
9. Connection.
Armature Department 10. Winding.
11. Connection.
Polering Department 12. Single Category.
Where employees are already doing other piece-work jobs at
piece-work they are expected to continue to do so.