Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD891 Case Number: LCR12249 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MEMOREX MEDIA PRODUCTS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 100 workers concerning alleged breaches of agreements.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
studied the Company/Union Agreements, the Court considers that the
Company was acting within its rights in accordance with Clauses 3
and 9 of the Agreement (Green Book) in formalising and recording
quality checks.
While the Court notes that the checking and recording is at
present being carried out under protest, it recommends on the
basis of the foregoing that the work in question should now be
regarded as a normal feature of the job.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD891 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12249
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MEMOREX MEDIA PRODUCTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 100 workers
concerning alleged breaches of agreements.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987, the Company and the Union negotiated a
re-organisation agreement, part of which eliminated the quality
control (Q.C.) staff as a section. In October, 1988, a dispute
commenced because the Company asked a number of machine operators
to fill out certain checking forms, which had formerly been the
function of the Q.C. staff. These staff refused the request and
also refused to implement the checking under protest, saying that
the quality issue should be discussed and negotiated through the
Union. The staff concerned were suspended and a strike ensued.
The Union maintains that the strike occurred as a result of the
staff being locked-out. The Company refused to discuss the issue
with the Union until there was agreement to do the disputed work
under protest. In an attempt to bring about a resolution of the
dispute the Chairman of the Labour Court intervened and on 29th
October, 1988, he proposed the following 'return to work' formula:
1. "The Union should agree to call off the strike and return
to work agreeing to carry out the disputed functions
under protest.
2. The Company should agree to accept a return to work as
quickly as possible having regard to its ability to get
the plant working and provide work.
3. On agreement of both parties to points 1 and 2 an
industrial relations officer will be appointed to chair a
conciliation conference to be arranged within a week at
which the matter in dispute will be discussed and
hopefully resolved.
4. Should the matter in dispute remain unresolved it will be
referred to a full hearing of the Court for investigation
and recommendation. In this regard the Court can provide
a date for such investigation within a further week and
the recommendation will be treated as a matter of
urgency."
This proposal was accepted by both side.
3. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference
held on 6th December, 1988, and on 8th December, 1988, the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 9th
January, 1989 - the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has argued that what they introduced were
"Process Checks" at production stations in order "to maintain
current orders and hopefully win new orders." The Company
says that they are entitled to do so under a clause in a 1984
Agreement on record keeping and under a 1987 Rationalisation
Agreement. The Union rejects the Company's interpretation of
the 1984 Agreement on the basis that it goes beyond the bounds
of reasonableness to wait 4 years to implement something, even
if it was there in the first place.
2. It was the Company who created the situation where there
is not adequate Q.C. cover when in 1987, they made a large
number of staff redundant.
3. The record keeping referred to in the 1984 Agreement has
always been the completion of flow sheets, work sheets,
down-time sheets, etc. but not quality control checking and
recording. This function was carried-out by the redundant
Q.C. staff and in practice it was to patrol the machines every
two hours and record the quality checks. The machine operator
assisted in the checks whenever possible, but the main
function of the machine operator was to fill and empty the
machines every few minutes, as the machines must not be
switched off. The quality checks carried-out by the Q.C.
staff were of a more responsible nature and in recognition of
this, the Company paid the Q.C. staff a 12.50% differential
above the pay of a machine operator.
4. The Company also quote clause 7 of the 1987 Agreement to
justify their position. No agreement on staff other than Q.C.
staff doing Q.C. work was entered into at that time. In fact,
where staff were being sought to do work of higher value their
rate was increased. The whole thrust of that Agreement was to
create a situation of flexibility and interchangeability
within each separate grade but not between those grades.
5. The Company must accept full responsibility for this dispute.
Their action of rule by dictat, total disregard for raising
matters through the negotiating procedures and their
autocratic approach to industrial relations caused this
dispute.
6. The machine operators are prepared to do work of higher
value, but they should receive some recompense. They also
want an undertaking that for the future the Union will be
consulted and negotiated with in relation to possible changes
in working practices and conditions. As the Company
unjustifiably suspended and locked-out the staff, the Company
should pay their wages for the period of loss, inclusive of
any other entitlements, such as holidays, bonus and credits.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The terms of the original Company/Union Agreement (Green
Book) provides for co-operation "with all changes necessary to
keep the Company's products competitive."
2. Clause 9, on record keeping, of the 1984 Agreement
specifically provides for the keeping of all records as
required and appropriate.
3. The 1987 Agreement, which involved major re-organisation
and redundancies, specifically provided for "full co-operation
and acceptance of the J.I.T. production lines, which require
full interchangeability and flexibility to fully utilise our
capabilities."
4. Under existing agreements the Company is entitled to
require its staff to record the process checks, as required by
the nature of its business to satisfy customer requirements.
The Company's customers insist that these checks take place.
Prior to the introduction of the checks the machine operators
were advised that since record keeping is part of their job,
as detailed in the 'Green Book,' the Company would have no
alternative but to initiate disciplinary action against any
employee failing to comply with this request within the agreed
grievance procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
studied the Company/Union Agreements, the Court considers that the
Company was acting within its rights in accordance with Clauses 3
and 9 of the Agreement (Green Book) in formalising and recording
quality checks.
While the Court notes that the checking and recording is at
present being carried out under protest, it recommends on the
basis of the foregoing that the work in question should now be
regarded as a normal feature of the job.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
__________________________
1st February, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.