Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD895 Case Number: LCR12267 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CADBURY IRELAND PLC - and - ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION |
Dispute concerning the deployment of electricians.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that under the terms of existing agreements the
Company is entitled to deploy staff on shifts and into areas in
which they are required to meet the needs of the business.
The Court therefore recommends that the proposals put forward at
the conciliation conference of 16th November, 1988 which meet the
above requirements be accepted by the Union.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD895 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12267
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND PLC
and
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the deployment of electricians.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of a business plan adopted by the Company in 1986
discussions took place on the deployment of fitters, electricians
and helpers within the various units in the factory, this included
the setting up of factory project/support groups. At that time
there were thirty four electricians employed and the Company
position was that it had twenty nine electrical jobs. Agreement
on deployment has been reached with the unions representing the
fitters and helpers. Discussions on the redeployment of
electricians took place in 1986 and 1987 but no agreement was
reached. In 1988 with the success of the business plan the
Company's position was that it required thirty five electricians
within the various units. On 19th August, 1988 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Conciliation conference took place on 3rd October, 28th October
and 16th November, 1988. Arising from the last conciliation
conference a compromise proposal on the redeployment of
electricians was put forward (details supplied to the Court).
However this was rejected by the Union side and on 22nd December,
1988 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 24th
January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has the right to manage, however it must do so
within the framework of existing agreements. The Company
wishes to reduce the staffing levels of electricians in the
various blocks, which were previously agreed. While
circumstances have changed, they have changed to the extent
that more machinery has been installed in the various blocks.
This machinery is more sophisticated and requires more
attention and work from the electricians. The machines must
be brought back into production as quickly as possible when
they break down. It is therefore vital that the electricians
deal with any problems immediately and are completely familiar
with the machinery.
2. The Company's proposals are unworkable and if implemented
will place an intolerable burden on the workers. The workers
will be forced to get machines back into production which they
are not fully familiar with. The Company has promised that
training facilities will be made available, but the Union is
of the opinion that 'hands on' experience is most effective.
However, if the Company pursues a programme of training which
would enable all the electricians to work efficiently with the
new machinery, the Union would be in a position to discuss
flexibility. While the Union does not contest the Company's
right to manage, its management plans are wrong, in breach of
existing agreements and unfair to the workers
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company needs to deploy the electricians in order to
ensure that there is maximum utilisation of electrical
resources/skills and that the cost base of products is
competitive. Levels of employment must be competitive with
other companies and the establishment of a group of
electricians on shift to support production or projects as
required is essential in order to respond to changing
priorities and demands. The projects/factory support group
would also provide cover for holidays, training and absence,
thereby ensuring that plants are covered at a viable cost.
2. The right of the Company to deploy workers onto shifts and
into areas where they are required in order to respond to
priorities and to control overtime costs are the fundamental
principles on which the 1973, 1976, 1983 and 1984 agreements
with this Union are based (details supplied to the Court).
These agreements also form the basis for the wages and
benefits package applicable to the electricians. These
agreements are in line with those agreed with all other unions
on the site and the redeployment of fitters and the setting up
of factory/project support groups has taken place in line with
them. The Company has the right to deploy workers onto the
shifts and into areas as required.
3. The business plan adopted by the Company in 1986 has been
successful to date and as a result the Company has been able
to offer permanent employment to an additional nine fitters,
six electricians and one hundred and four production
operatives. The continued success of this plan and the
Company's ability to expand will only be achieved if labour
costs are competitive, overtime costs are controlled and there
are efficient working arrangements and practices. The
proposals put forward to both sides at conciliation represent
a fair compromise and should be now accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that under the terms of existing agreements the
Company is entitled to deploy staff on shifts and into areas in
which they are required to meet the needs of the business.
The Court therefore recommends that the proposals put forward at
the conciliation conference of 16th November, 1988 which meet the
above requirements be accepted by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
9th February, 1989. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.