Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88286 Case Number: LCR12446 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH CEMENT - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Company that there should be a rationalisation of maintenance general workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the changes in work practices required by
the Company are not unreasonable. The Court recommends that these
changes should be implemented through negotiation between the
parties, not later than 1st December next.
Division: Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88286 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12446
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH CEMENT
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Company that there should be a rationalisation of
maintenance general workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Over the past number of years the Company has undergone
ongoing rationalisation, which was necessitated by a drop in
cement sales and increased competition. The Company has sought a
large degree of flexibility from the general workers in the
maintenance area. These are currently employed as craftsmen's
helpers and on a number of other ancillary functions. The Company
is seeking to reduce the total number of general operatives in the
maintenance area from 47 (20 at the Limerick Plant and 27 at the
Platin Plant) to 26 i.e. 14 in Limerick and 12 in Platin. The
Company proposal is that there should be an integrated workforce
in the maintenance area and that no one should be designated a
fitters helper. Instead, there should be complete flexibility
with individual workers giving priority to their existing job.
The Company wishes to bring in the proposed changes on a phased
basis, starting with the discontinuation of the rostering of
craftsmen's helpers. The Company contends that it has paid for
the proposed changes over several wage and productivity agreements
(details supplied to the Court). The Unions' position is that
there is a long standing agreement on the ratio of craftsmen's
helpers to craftsmen. The workers had already suffered a series
of reduction in this ratio and they were not prepared to see it
reduced further or to have the grade abolished altogether. The
Unions contended that the workers were already giving a high
degree of flexibility to the Company. Agreement could not be
reached on the issue at local level, and on 18th February, 1988
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference took place on 15th March, 1988.
No agreement was reached, and on 18th April, 1988 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 8th June, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the 1971 Manning Agreement, the Company stated that the
number of tradesmen's helpers would not fall below the level
of 75 per cent of tradesmen. This was reaffirmed in a 1983
Agreement (details supplied to the Court). Since then, the
number of craftsmen's helpers has been drastically reduced in
both plants and the Unions are not prepared to tolerate
further reductions.
2. Over the past 12 years the Unions have agreed on several
occasions to reductions, not only in the maintenance area but
in the production area also. The Company has achieved
significant increases in productivity as well as consistent
increases in profits. All of this has been achieved with a
declining general workforce. The need for the category of
competent trademan's helper is firmly established on the
grounds of safety at work, the labour content of the job and
custom and practice. The Court is asked to support the
Unions' position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was acknowledged from the start of the Rationalisation
Scheme in 1984 that, because of its Voluntary Nature, it
resulted in an imbalance in departments depending on where
volunteers came from. The Company has not had sufficient
volunteers from the General Workers in the Maintenance
Department, while there have been additional volunteers in the
Production areas. As a consequence of the Company's inability
to get agreement on moving Maintenance General Workers into
the Production areas, cover for relief has to be provided by
overtime, and partly by temporary employees.
2. The work load of maintenance workers has been reduced
considerably by:
(i) Improved Plant design
(ii) Improved planning
(iii) Computer aided Preventative Maintenance Programmes
and
(iv) Modern tools and equipment.
The work currently being done by the present number of
Helpers can easily be covered by:
(a) Those remaining
(b) Process Workers/Quarry Workers on Day or
Shift/Process Dispatch General Workers on Day or
Shift
(c) Craftsmen prepared to work without Helpers.
The Unions themselves seem to accept this in that they have
stated that they would not call for the replacement of any of
the Maintenance General Workers if they volunteered for
redundancy.
3. The category of workers concerned in the dispute has
disappeared from most process industry and certainly does not
exist in the case of newly established industry. Competitor
companies in Europe and Britain work without helpers and most
importantly the two competitor companies in Ireland do not
have the category. In the present competitive climate, with a
market which extends throughout the 32 counties, the Company
cannot be expected to uniquely retain this practice.
4. The retention of a 'helper' on shift is a particularly
inefficient use of manpower. This position ties up 4/5
people. The amount of work which is done by helpers on shift
is limited and the Tradesmen can easily be assisted by a
process worker if required. This practice ties up labour
which can be more efficiently deployed on day work in the
Production Department and cannot be justified.
5. All the Company Wage Rounds have been on the basis of
co-operation with ongoing change. Furthermore, agreement was
reached whereby a proportion of wage savings was distributed
to those remaining in employment. The current value of this
is £1,483 p.a., which is pensionable and linked to C.P.I.
(details supplied to the Court).
6. In the Cement Industry, the cost of an employee in the
Company is second only to Germany and considerably ahead of
competitors in Ireland. Yet the Company has to deal with a
whole range of restrictions which do not operate with any
other producer. As the Company suffers more import
penetration or price competition and as it comes to depend
more and more on exports, these restrictions are no longer
sustainable. In the light of all of the above, the Court is
asked to support the Company's position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the changes in work practices required by
the Company are not unreasonable. The Court recommends that these
changes should be implemented through negotiation between the
parties, not later than 1st December next.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________________
P.P. Nicholas Fitzgerald
26th June, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.