Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89521 Case Number: LCR12668 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the 1987 Plant Agreement (Return to Work Agreement).
Recommendation:
27. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties on
the various issues and recommends as follows:
(1) Selection for Transfer
The Court does not consider the general application of
seniority to transfers to be generally feasible and
therefore does not recommend its application in this
particular case.
(2) Application of New Standards
Since the original standard was applicable to all set ups
the Court does not consider it unreasonable for the
Company to apply the new standard over the same range of
work subject only to the proviso that reasonable and
specific complaints about the new standard are thoroughly
investigated and adjustments made were warranted.
(3) Transfer of Piecework
Since the Company has the clear right to transfer
pieceworkers to other piece work the Court does not
recommend concession of this claim.
(4) Re-study of Motor Assembly
The Court takes the view that the Company was correct, in
accordance with the terms of Clause 3(b) of the Return to
Work Agreement, to restudy the job at issue and does not
therefore recommend concession of this claim.
(5) Regrading of Assembly Department
The Court finds the basis of this claim difficult to
understand as normally job grading does not relate to
work load as such but to job content such as skill,
responsibility, etc. Where the workers consider any such
elements have changed it is the view of the Court that
they are entitled to have the work reviewed in the light
of the criteria used to grade their jobs in the original
exercise.
(6) Access to Union Engineer
Having regard to the nature of the method of payment for
the work done the Court is of the opinion that the
Company should grant reasonable access to the Union's
work study engineer.
(7) Number of Temporary Workers
The Court in the light of the current position and the
enhanced prospects for employment of those at present
temporarily employed does not consider that any change is
desirable for the present and does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
(8) Piece Work Allowance for a worker
The Court recommends that the Company's offer detailed in
their letter of the 13th November, 1989, but with
effect from 4th October, 1989, be accepted and
implemented without further delay. The Court will
undertake to look at any specific difficulties which may
arise in respect of this worker at a further hearing if
necessary.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89521 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12668
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the 1987 Plant Agreement (Return to Work
Agreement).
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. There was a dispute in the Company between December, 1986, and
January, 1987. The dispute was resolved when an agreement known
as the "Return to Work Agreement" was drawn up at a Labour Court
conciliation conference. This agreement gave management the right
to study jobs once a worker had exceeded 180% performance. Since
then the Union has processed a number of grievances arising from
these studies. As a result there have been several cases referred
to the Labour Court since January, 1987, (Labour Court
Recommendations No's 11906, 11907 and 11444 refers). In October,
1988, the parties agreed that the operation of the "Return to Work
Agreement" and their interpretation of the Recommendations be
reviewed. Following a further Labour Court hearing, held on 15th
February, 1989, the Court in Recommendation No. 12340, undertook
to arrange a further hearing to investigate a number of issues
raised at the hearing of 15th February, 1989. These issues were
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 14th
June, 1989. Agreement could not be reached at a conciliation
conference held on 29th June, 1989, and it was agreed to refer the
outstanding issues back to the Labour Court for investigation.
The Court investigated the matter on 4th October, 1989, in Galway.
Claim 1 - Selection for Transfer
Background:
3. The Company employs are two balancers and the worker concerned
is the most senior of the two. He claims the junior worker should
be the first to be transferred away from the area when there is a
reduction in work. The worker concerned is claiming compensation
for loss of bonus earnings for periods when he was transferred
away.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. The worker concerned is not being given first preference in
his work area and is losing earnings (details supplied to the
Court). The Union expects the Company to pay in relation to loss
of income based on a seniority situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. The worker has named several workers who he claims were
operating his machine while he was transferred elsewhere.
Research has shown the claim to be unfounded. It would be
impossible to operate a system of seniority in this area.
Claim 2 - Application of New Standards
Background:
6. The worker concerned in this claim submitted a piece-work
docket in respect of a spray painting set-up. Upon calculation it
was found he exceeded 180% efficiency. Following a re-study, the
Company reduced his time substantially and applied this to all the
worker's other jobs. As a result he claims he is suffering a loss
in pay.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. The blanket time study is unjust in this case because of the
difference in setting up various jobs. As a result of applying a
blanket time study the worker's efficiency percentage has dropped
from 178% to 62%. The worker's original standards should be
re-applied and he should be compensated for the loss he has
suffered in pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. The worker concerned broke the 180% efficiency ceiling on a
set-up. The Company re-studied the job and issued a new standard.
As the original standard applied to several set-ups prior to the
break, the Company now applies the new standard across the board.
This was only done after exhaustive research.
Claim 3 - Transfer of Piecework
Background:
9. The worker concerned operates a drilling machine on piecework.
At the end of her production run her machine must be cleaned. For
this she would attract 100% efficiency. However, she is being
transferred to other work and another worker is detailed to clean
her machine. As a result she is at a loss.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. The Union believes that this practice is an abuse of the
transferability clause and seeks that it be ended. The Union also
seeks compensation for any losses she has incurred.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. The Company reserves the right to transfer any pieceworker to
another piecework job immediately if it is available.
Claim 4 - Re-study of Motor Assembly
Background:
12. Recently the Company introduced a new method of assembly.
The Company believed that the new method would result in a
substantial reduction (more than 10%) in the time taken to carry
out the function. As a result a re-study was carried out. The
result of the study was a substantial time cut, which the Union
does not believe is warranted.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
13. The Union does not accept that the differences between the
old and new work methods should result in any time cut. Requests
to allow the Union's industrial engineer examine the matter have
been refused by the Company. The original standard should be
re-applied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
14. The Company believed that the new assembly method would lead
to a reduction in the time taken to assemble the motor, therefore
a study was carried out. A new standard was issued on foot of
this study.
Claim 5 - Re-grading of Assembly Department
Background:
15. Seven workers in the Assembly Department believe that their
workload has increased since the "Return to Work Agreement". The
Union seeks to have their grade reviewed.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
16. There have been many changes in the Assembly Department where
the seven workers work. The Union believes that there is
sufficient reason for a review of the grade. The Company should
not have the unilateral right to refuse a review.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
17. The workers concerned are doing grade 3 work and there is no
foundation for an increase in grade.
Claim 6 - Access to Union Engineer
Background:
18. The Union has requested that its industrial engineer be
allowed visit the plant. The Company refuses access on the basis
that the Company is not given access to his reports.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
19. As some of the workers' grievances are of a technical nature
(those relating to tight standards), it is necessary for the Union
to have them checked out professionally. The Company are refusing
to allow the Union's engineer access on the grounds that the Union
do not furnish the Company with his report. When a Union engineer
makes a report, unless otherwise agreed, it is for the internal
use of the officials dealing with the case. The Company's
attitude is detrimental to good industrial relations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
20. The Company has in the past allowed the Union's industrial
engineer access to the plant, but the Company has never been
provided with a copy of his report. The Company would like to be
able to submit a list of jobs to be examined by the engineer along
with those the Union wants to be examined and to receive his
report.
Claim 7 - Number of Temporary Workers
Background:
21. The Company employs a number of temporary workers. The Union
believes that these workers should be made permanent.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
22. The ratio of temporary to permanent workers currently about
25%, is too high. These workers are insecure for up to 2 years,
in some cases through the use of short term contracts. After the
issuing of 2 contracts it should be possible for the Company to
confirm permanency and allow these workers obtain the rights and
privileges associated with permanency.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
23. Out of a total workforce of 109 only 21 are temporary i.e.
19%. During the last 6 months 13 of these were hired and 6 were
hired in 1988. It is Company policy to make these workers
permanent as and when it can. Consideration must be given to the
uncertainty of demand for the Company's products.
Claim 8 - Piece Work Allowance for a Worker
Background:
24. The worker concerned is handicapped. When he joined the
Company 12 years ago he was given a special allowance of 40% as he
has poor co-ordination. Having exceeded 180% efficiency his job
was restudied and the allowance was withdrawn. The Union is
seeking that his allowance be restored. Subsequent to the Court's
investigation of the matter on 4th October, 1989, the Company and
Union held further local discussions. On 13th November the
Company proposed the following settlement:
- The 40% allowance to be re-instated on applicable jobs.
To be applicable from date of agreement on issue.
- The re-instatement of the 40% allowance is accepted as
full and final settlement of the worker's grievance.
- No "Knock-on" effect for any other worker.
- Standards breached by the worker to remain on work studies
file for re-study.
The proposal was rejected by the Union on the basis that they
considered it unnecessary to retain the breached standards on file
and that retrospection was not provided for.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
25. The worker concerned was recruited as a special category
worker and the 40% allowance was put in as a special arrangement.
The Company is being unfair in removing the allowance. The worker
concerned rarely went over a 150% efficiency level, therefore, it
seems strange that his production should suddenly rocket up. His
earnings have dropped by over #60 per week since his allowance was
removed. The Union believes that the allowance should be
re-instated and that he should be compensated for his list
earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
26. The worker was originally given the special allowance because
of his poor co-ordination. His co-ordination has probably
improved over the years. By agreement, any breaking of the 180%
efficiency level must be re-studied. When the Company looked at
this particular worker it was apparent that even without the 40%
allowance he would still be averaging 123% efficiency. The
Company believe that this represents a fair bonus.
RECOMMENDATION:
27. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties on
the various issues and recommends as follows:
(1) Selection for Transfer
The Court does not consider the general application of
seniority to transfers to be generally feasible and
therefore does not recommend its application in this
particular case.
(2) Application of New Standards
Since the original standard was applicable to all set ups
the Court does not consider it unreasonable for the
Company to apply the new standard over the same range of
work subject only to the proviso that reasonable and
specific complaints about the new standard are thoroughly
investigated and adjustments made were warranted.
(3) Transfer of Piecework
Since the Company has the clear right to transfer
pieceworkers to other piece work the Court does not
recommend concession of this claim.
(4) Re-study of Motor Assembly
The Court takes the view that the Company was correct, in
accordance with the terms of Clause 3(b) of the Return to
Work Agreement, to restudy the job at issue and does not
therefore recommend concession of this claim.
(5) Regrading of Assembly Department
The Court finds the basis of this claim difficult to
understand as normally job grading does not relate to
work load as such but to job content such as skill,
responsibility, etc. Where the workers consider any such
elements have changed it is the view of the Court that
they are entitled to have the work reviewed in the light
of the criteria used to grade their jobs in the original
exercise.
(6) Access to Union Engineer
Having regard to the nature of the method of payment for
the work done the Court is of the opinion that the
Company should grant reasonable access to the Union's
work study engineer.
(7) Number of Temporary Workers
The Court in the light of the current position and the
enhanced prospects for employment of those at present
temporarily employed does not consider that any change is
desirable for the present and does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
(8) Piece Work Allowance for a worker
The Court recommends that the Company's offer detailed in
their letter of the 13th November, 1989, but with
effect from 4th October, 1989, be accepted and
implemented without further delay. The Court will
undertake to look at any specific difficulties which may
arise in respect of this worker at a further hearing if
necessary.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
5th December, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.