Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89473 Case Number: AD8960 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND;BAKERY AND FOODWORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION |
Appeal by the Unions against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW115/89.
Recommendation:
7. The proposed change in working arrangements has little if any
impact on either the earnings or work-load of the workers involved
and the Unions' objections are based mainly on the manner in which
the Company sought to introduce the change. While there were
obviously different perceptions of what this particular manning
arrangement was to be, the material effect of the Company's
proposals is minimal and the Court considers that in the context
of the agreement as a whole and the provisions for fine-tuning,
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appropriate and
should be implemented.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89473 APPEAL DECISION NO AD6089
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
BAKERY AND FOODWORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Unions against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation CW115/89.
BACKGROUND:
2. In March, 1989, a new comprehensive Agreement covering pay,
conditions, and productivity improvements was introduced in the
Company's manufacturing, warehousing, and manufacturing services
areas. Prior to the ratification of the proposals by the
workforce, all sections of the plant were party to indepth
communications in respect of the type and amount of change
required. Given the extensive nature of the operations and the
amount of detail to be covered, provision was expressly made for
'fine-tuning' amendments (details supplied to the Court).
3. The present dispute relates to the Jahn Chocolate Enrober.
The Jahn Plant operates under either of two conditions:
- direct running, linked to an oven
- feed-back not linked to an oven. In this situation
there is a substantial reduction in volume.
Feed-back may take place on a day in the week when direct running
is scheduled out or on an overtime basis after 4.30 p.m. Prior to
the Agreement, the staffing level was as follows:-
- one enrober operator
- eleven packers
- two wrapping machine operators
- one checker
- one porter (who covered the entire processing area).
When the Jahn Plant was working on feed-back, the two wrapping
machine operators and the enrober operator were involved in
porter-service work, taking boxes to and from the plant etc.
Under the new proposals, the portering work is to be undertaken by
the wrapping machine operators only and any shortfall from the
absence of the enrober operator would, if necessary, be made up by
the newly-created job of B shift porter. The Unions claim that
this was never mentioned to the workers concerned prior to the
Agreement being signed and that had it been, it would not have
been acceptable. The Company's view is that the two wrapping
machine operators no longer needed the assistance of the enrober operator and th
this particular change, the principle of it was part of the
Agreement and had been catered for in the "fine-tuning" clause.
As no agreement was possible at local level, the matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation.
4. Having investigated the dispute on the 3rd May, 1989, the
Rights Commissioner issued the following Findings and
Recommendation on the 8th May:-
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:-
"The Union has made the point that this particular change was
not specified by the Company in its communication exercises
and therefore ought not be implemented. The Company
maintains that the intention and objective of the Agreement
covered such a change. In this particular dispute, on
balance, I believe that the Agreement does cover such a
proposal.
I recommend that the Unions accept the change proposed by
the Company is covered by the Agreement".
This Recommendation was unacceptable to the Unions and was
appealed to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969, on the 21st June, 1989. A Court hearing was
held on the 20th July, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. During the course of its communications programme, the
Company omitted to inform the claimants of the changes it is
now seeking to implement. As a result, they accepted the
package in good faith. However, they will not now agree to
the Company applying terms in respect of change which was not
put to them in any form following exhausting communications
exercises with all staff.
2. The claimants need clarification that overtime is not in
question and that they should have three staff while the plant
is on feed-back, as opposed to only having two, as per
Company objectives.
3. The Rights Commissioner was of the opinion that the
proposals covered such a change as part of the Agreement but
nowhere in the Agreement is there any mention of this type of
change and the workers concerned cannot be expected to take on
board changes which they know nothing about.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In the context of the new Agreement, it was, and is, the
Company's intention that as part of the pay/productivity
exchange that the two wrapping machine operators have largely
the capacity to undertake their own portering. Any shortfall
from the absence of the enrober operator would, if necessary,
be made up by the newly-created job of B shift porter.
2. From an income point of view, the only implication could
be for the enrober operator and this is fully provided for.
The Agreement provides for the Company making available
historic earning opportunities whilst reducing the level of
overtime attendance required. This is achieved through
consolidated pay levels. It was a singular feature of the
negotiations leading to the Agreement that dependence on
overtime should be reduced to the greatest extent possible on
the basis that previous earning opportunity would be
available.
3. In the case of the Jahn plant, the implication and
intention of the Agreement is clear, based on the new floor
portering arrangement and the recognition of previous
feed-back income in new structured income arrangements without
reliance on feed-back overtime.
DECISION:
7. The proposed change in working arrangements has little if any
impact on either the earnings or work-load of the workers involved
and the Unions' objections are based mainly on the manner in which
the Company sought to introduce the change. While there were
obviously different perceptions of what this particular manning
arrangement was to be, the material effect of the Company's
proposals is minimal and the Court considers that in the context
of the agreement as a whole and the provisions for fine-tuning,
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appropriate and
should be implemented.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
18th August, 1989 ---------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman