Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89403 Case Number: LCR12505 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim concerning guaranteed overtime with regard to cleaning machines.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case,
and, taking into account the "buy-out" of those employees who were
engaged in hygiene overtime in 1984, recommends that those
employees covered by paragraph L of the 1986 Agreement either
should have the level of overtime of that time maintained or that
the parties negotiate the level of compensation for its "buy-out."
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89403 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12505
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim concerning guaranteed overtime with regard to cleaning
machines.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under an agreement signed in 1974, machinery is cleaned on an
overtime basis (this is apart from any production overtime). In
1984 a major rationalisation programme was implemented, resulting
in over 90 redundancies and a reduction from six line to four line
running. The loss of overtime associated with the two dropped
lines was compensated for by a three year buy-out of future
losses. On remaining lines only a part of the overtime was
eliminated, by agreement, and future losses were again compensated
for by the same three year formula. In 1986 further
rationalisation took place by means of job amalgamation. On
certain machines, where two jobs became one, hygiene overtime on
that machine was maintained by the remaining operator. It was
also agreed that the displaced person was required to undertake
hygiene and other duties on overtime elsewhere, as per the
guarantee. Clause L of the 1986 Agreement states:-
(i) Where jobs attracting hygiene overtime are amalgamated,
the hygiene overtime will be combined.
(ii) Employees displaced from the above jobs will be deployed
on hygiene work attracting the same hygiene hours.
3. The present dispute arises from recent discussions relating to
the proposed introduction of new machinery and work practices
(negotiations are currently suspended pending the outcome of this
claim). The Union is contending that the overtime is guaranteed
whether or not the machines are running. This is rejected by the
Company which claims that overtime is only paid on days when
machines are running. Following failure to resolve the matter
locally, it was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference on the 30th May, 1989, failed to
resolve the issue and on the 2nd June, the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 28th July, 1989 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Guaranteed hygiene overtime is worked on hygiene duties
but where some of this time is utilised on production work (to
the Company's benefit), the Union has no objection as long as
the agreed level of overtime is maintained.
2. Company-determined machine utilisation has never been a
feature of agreements on hygiene overtime. In fact the trends
in the Company have been entirely to Management's benefit with
faster machine speeds and increasing job losses.
3. The Company's re-interpretation of the agreements is
basically an attempt to cut costs and thereby reduce the
claimants' earnings as part of an expansion drive.
4. The Company, which is the largest soft drinks producer in
the country, is part of the Cantrell and Cochrane Group which
recently announced pre-tax profits of #13.45m.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Since the agreement in 1984 when specific lines have not
been required they have not been operated. Then no cleaning
overtime was carried out. It is clear therefore that the
overtime specified in 1984 related to those hours needed to
ensure adequate cleaning of machinery and did not relate to
individual guarantees outside the operation of such machinery.
2. The soft drinks sector is and always has been a very cost
competitive one. In recent years this has resulted in massive
rationalisation in the industry. Since 1982, the Company has
had to rationalise to ensure its continued survival. In this
context the Company, amongst other things, revised and
tightened the time allocated to cleaning of machines in 1984
and agreed new time allocations with the Unions. This
resulted in agreed reductions in cleaning times set out for
specific machines on various lines. Those affected were
compensated by the Company for the difference between the old
guaranteed time and the reduced time.
3. Since 1984 hygiene overtime has not been carried out on
every machine every night. Machine operators in such
circumstances have not been guaranteed alternative cleaning
overtime. Neither have they been guaranteed replacement
overtime. They may, however, through holidays or absenteeism
pick up other operator's cleaning overtime. Any additional
overtime they receive comes either from a general production
overtime roster in the bottling hall when available, or
available overtime in the warehouse or maintenance area.
4. Replacement overtime is not guaranteed when cleaning is
not available. However, the general level of available
overtime is such that no reduction in overtime hours has
actually occurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case,
and, taking into account the "buy-out" of those employees who were
engaged in hygiene overtime in 1984, recommends that those
employees covered by paragraph L of the 1986 Agreement either
should have the level of overtime of that time maintained or that
the parties negotiate the level of compensation for its "buy-out."
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
________________________
9th August, 1989 Chairman.
D.H./J.C.