Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89574 Case Number: LCR12644 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KLOPMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Weavers being asked to inspect their work three times daily.
Recommendation:
5. It is clear to the Court that the Company's proposal to
institute a system of initialling work has created anxiety amongst
the weavers. This anxiety is based on a fear that (a) the weaver
will be held responsible for faults made by another person and (b)
because of time lost initialling, the weaver may be unable to
maintain the required production level. The Company's assurances
on these points and their proposal to allow a 6 month moratorium
on discipline etc has not succeeded in allaying these anxieties.
The Court notes that there is agreement in principle between the
parties to implement a re-structuring in the Weaving Depot in
January, 1990 and that this will be monitored by the Company and
Union Industrial Engineers.
The Court accordingly recommends that as from 1st January, 1990
the weavers agree to the Company proposals for a trial period of 3
months and that the Industrial Engineers who will be observing the
re-structuring operation should also monitor and report on the
operation of the initialling proposals. At the end of the trial
period and on the basis of the report of the Industrial Engineers
the parties should be in a position to reach agreement as to
future work methods.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89574 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12644
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KLOPMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Weavers being asked to inspect their work three times daily.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of fabrics for the
home and export market at its plant in Tralee and has embarked on
a substantial investment programme in order to become viable and
profitable. As part of a programme to improve efficiency and
quality of product, Management has requested individual weavers to
initial and inspect the cloth on each loom three times per shift
(within the first hour midway through and before the end of the
shift). Management maintains that this action is necessary and
claims that a substantial amount of woven fabric was reject
quality which is a direct financial loss to the Company. The
system now proposed by the Company would attribute the quality
problem to individual weavers and these could be retrained where
necessary. If people could not be retrained they would be
transferred to other areas of the plant and there would be no
question of disciplinary action against workers. The Union, while
accepting that there is a quality control problem has rejected the
Company's proposal on the grounds that a total review of the whole
structure of the weaving department is necessary and that this
should be monitored by industrial engineers both from the Union
and Company side. The Union claims that the present proposal of
the Company is time consuming affecting production outputs, and
that weavers are being held accountable for errors not made by
them. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue which was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
27th July, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 1st
August, 1989 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on the 25th August, 1989. A Court hearing was held in Killarney
on the 2nd November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the Company's proposal weavers would be ultimately
responsible for all quality in the weaving department even
though there are loom service people, loom patrollers,
training instructors, supervisors and department managers all
taking part on occasions in helping in the weaving process.
2. The Company's proposal lacked information and detail on
overall policy for quality in the plant. As on many occasions
where a waveness would occur on the cloth the weaver could be
instructed by his/her supervisor or manager to continue
weaving the cloth to suit the production needs of the day. If
the weaver had initialled this cloth then he/she could be held
responsible for its poor quality.
3. The Company has failed to carry out any industrial
engineering study to determine what effect the change would
have on workloads. At present, each weaver would have a set
of 18 looms and on each loom there are two warps (sections of
cloth), total 36, to inspect and sign the cloth. It would
take approximately 5 minutes per warp which totals 540 minutes
per 12 hour shift. This makes it physically impossible for
the weavers to carry out any production work.
4. The Union feels that very little thought has been put into
the Company's proposals and is of the view that a work study
of the whole operation of the weaving department, monitored by
industrial engineers, is essential to the implementation of
any new procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's proposals are reasonable and it is part of
all workers' responsibility to ensure that first quality cloth
is manufactured. Compliance with these procedures is
essential for the Company to identify further areas that might
require corrective action to ensure good quality cloth. The
Company can only survive in a highly competitive market by
minimising defects, and the current refusal by the weavers
could ultimately damage the survival of the Company.
2. What is being asked of the weavers is no different to what
is expected from thousands of workers in companies throughout
the country with regard to the approach to producing quality
fabric. It is essential that weavers are accountable for the
work they do and this accountability and responsibility is
being acknowledged in other departments in the Company whereby
employees sign off and take responsibility for their work.
3. It is in order to reduce the high level of reject quality
cloth that the Company requested the relevant weavers to sign
the work done at the time/point of repair or inspection. By
identifying who carried out the repair that caused a defect
the Company could provide further retraining, to the worker,
and implement whatever other corrective action was necessary.
It is the responsibility of Management to produce first class
quality fabric and in order to do this it has the right to
implement appropriate procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is clear to the Court that the Company's proposal to
institute a system of initialling work has created anxiety amongst
the weavers. This anxiety is based on a fear that (a) the weaver
will be held responsible for faults made by another person and (b)
because of time lost initialling, the weaver may be unable to
maintain the required production level. The Company's assurances
on these points and their proposal to allow a 6 month moratorium
on discipline etc has not succeeded in allaying these anxieties.
The Court notes that there is agreement in principle between the
parties to implement a re-structuring in the Weaving Depot in
January, 1990 and that this will be monitored by the Company and
Union Industrial Engineers.
The Court accordingly recommends that as from 1st January, 1990
the weavers agree to the Company proposals for a trial period of 3
months and that the Industrial Engineers who will be observing the
re-structuring operation should also monitor and report on the
operation of the initialling proposals. At the end of the trial
period and on the basis of the report of the Industrial Engineers
the parties should be in a position to reach agreement as to
future work methods.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
17th November, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.