Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89684 Case Number: LCR12655 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BEMICO (IRELAND) LTD - and - THE IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim concerning:- (A) Deductions from pay of four workers, (B) Thirty Nine hour week, (C) Seniority of Chargehands.
Recommendation:
DEDUCTION FROM PAY - 4 EMPLOYEES
12. By choice the workers in this case, were working "non-bonus"
levels, - in other words they were doing a basic days work for a
days basic pay. In the circumstances they were not entitled to
finish early by discounting production for down-time.
Accordingly the Court is of the view that the Company was entitled
to act as it did and does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
39 HOUR WEEK
13. It is clear from the evidence presented at the hearing that
the conventional area is operating at efficiencies lower than its
capacity and that on average actual time worked is significantly
less than 39 hours per week. Accordingly the Court recommends
that current output targets should be maintained on the reduction
of the working week to 39 hours.
SENIORITY OF CHARGEHANDS
14. Having regard to the qualifications and skills required of
shift-leaders for the moulding area the Court considers that the
Company are justified in their view that the conventional
chargehands should not be regarded as having seniority rights in
the injection moulding area. The Court accordingly does not
recommend concession of the Union claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89684 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12655
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BEMICO (IRELAND) LTD
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
THE IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim concerning:-
(A) Deductions from pay of four workers,
(B) Thirty Nine hour week,
(C) Seniority of Chargehands.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of garden furniture,
both tubular and steel (referred to as traditional or
conventional) and plastic (referred to as injection moulded or all
weather). It has a permanent workforce of fifty, thirty five in
its conventional department and fifteen in its injection moulding
area. As the Company's business is highly seasonal the permanent
workforce is supplemented by the use of temporary workers. The
issues in dispute were discussed at a conciliation conference on
15th September, 1989 but no agreement was reached. The parties
asked to refer the matters to a full Labour Court hearing which
was held on 25th October, 1989.
(A) Deductions from pay of four workers:
Background:
3. Labour Court Recommendation 12100 dated November 1988 dealt
with a dispute concerning warnings which issued to three workers.
The warnings issued because of the workers' poor production level.
In dealing with the claim the Court Recommended as follows:-
"The Court, having regard to the circumstances in which
consolidation of part of the bonus took place in 1983 is of
the opinion that the Company is entitled to expect a level
of performance at least to the standard of level 2 of the
old scheme and consistent failure to reach this may be
reasonably deemed to be unsatisfactory performance. The
Court therefore recommends that the warnings issued in this
respect should be cancelled but in light of the above would
consider that future warnings related to the same behaviour
to be completely valid."
Level two standard is equivalent to 100 springbeds (covering) per
day, per worker. The dispute concerning the four workers (three
of whom were involved in the dispute covered by Labour Court
Recommendation No. 12100) arose when they were deducted pay
because they did not work until normal finishing time. The Union
contend that the workers lost time (downtime) because of material
shortages. They completed their work quota (pro rata) on the day
in question.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A performance level of 100 springbeds (covering) daily is
required per worker. Over an eight hour working day this is
equal to an output of 12.5 per hour. If one hour downtime
occurs (delays - material shortage, machine problem etc) the
performance level for that day would be 87.5 springbeds. The
four workers concerned with the dispute finished work before
normal finishing time on a particular day, having achieved
their performance target taking account of down time. The
workers did not complete eight hours production on the day in
question as to do so required a performance level greater than
that previously agreed. This would have been a departure from
all previous practice within the company.
2. The four claimants cannot be treated any differently from
other workers. Payments deducted must be refunded and no such
penalties should be imposed in future similar circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The four workers concerned with the dispute were engaged
in springbed covering on the day the incident resulting in pay
deductions occurred. They were not working in a bonus
situation, which means that they were required to cover 100
springbeds or work the full day to finishing time at 4.45 p.m.
Since they were not working on bonus time the question of
"waiting time" or "allowances" did not arise (to compensate
for periods of work stoppages due to shortages of material
etc). On the particular day there had been shortages of
material on a number of occasions (short periods 10-20 mins).
The four claimants refused to work to bonus, did not cover 100
beds and would not work until normal finishing time of 4.45
p.m. In the circumstances the Company had to clock the
workers out and deduct pay accordingly.
2. The Company is entitled to expect a worker to meet agreed
quotas for basic pay or to work until normal finishing time.
When a worker refuses to do so he is in effect setting aside
his contract of employment. In those circumstances the
Company is entitled to take appropriate action in response.
(B) Thirty nine hour week:
BACKGROUND
6. The Company offered its workforce a thirty nine hour working
week from 1st August, 1989, on the following basis:-
1. Injection Moulding Department - Additional days leave.
2. Conventional Department - Earlier finish on Friday -
present production levels to be maintained.
The arrangement put forward for the injection moulding department
was acceptable to the Union but they rejected the arrangement for
the Conventional Department, on the grounds that if the working
week was reduced by 1/40th, work targets should be correspondingly
reduced.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
7. The Company operates a bonus scheme which provides for a bonus
payment where certain production targets are achieved. The
logical consequence of reducing working hours by 1/40th would be
to reduce production targets by a similar amount. Otherwise
workers would need to work 2.5% harder and produce the same
output, for the same pay, over 39 hours as opposed to the original
forty hours.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Clause 4 of the Agreement (Programme for National
Recovery) in relation to the 39 hour working week states:-
"Employers and unions, in making agreements for the reduction
in working time shall, in accordance with clauses 7 and 8 of
the main agreement.
(i) have regard to
- the costs involved
- the implications for competitiveness
- the need for flexibility
- the effect on production and services
- the effect on jobs
- the exigencies of the work involved
- the effect on the public finances, and
(ii) agree arrangements for the efficient use of
- human resources
- plant
- equipment
- machinery
The criteria outlined above should be utilised so as to
minimise any adverse effects on costs and employment."
Company proposals to implement the reduced working week in the
conventional department by an early finish of one hour on
Friday with no change in production targets were rejected by
the Union. The Union's approach is contrary to the specific
terms, spirit and intent of the agreement. A significant
number of companies have reach agreement, maintaining 40 hours
production in 39 hours.
8. 2. The conventional department operates well below its
optimum efficiency due to the Union's failure to agree a
productivity incentive scheme. An IPC report on bonus levels
shows clearly that higher targets are easily achievable. This
is confirmed by the fact that the workforce in the
conventional department completes work targets well before
normal finishing time. They either go home early or go to the
canteen. Current production levels can easily be maintained
when the working week is reduced to 39 hours.
C Seniority of Chargehands
BACKGROUND:
9. Labour Court Recommendation No. 12260 dealt with a dispute
concerning the "principle of seniority in lay-off/recall
situations". The Court recommended that the parties negotiate a
new agreement concerning lay-offs, as the existing one is not
practical. In the current dispute the Union contends that overall
seniority for chargehands within the plant should prevail in lay
off/recall/redundancy situations. The Company maintains that the
question of overall seniority does not arise as chargehands in the
conventional department do not have the technical expertise
necessary to work in the injection moulding department.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. Senior general operatives have an option to transfer to
the injection moulding department when lay offs are taking
place in other areas of the factory. A similar option should
be available to chargehands.
2. Chargehands should be given adequate training in the lead
hand duties of the injection moulding department. The duties
could then be satisfactorily performed by chargehands.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. It is the Company's position that chargehands in the
conventional department do not have seniority rights in the
injection moulding department. They do not have the required
skills to operate as shift leaders in injection moulding.
Shift leaders require technical qualifications and are
qualified craftsmen.
6. In the event of a redundancy situation the Company would
regard chargehands as having seniority rights over
general/production operatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
DEDUCTION FROM PAY - 4 EMPLOYEES
12. By choice the workers in this case, were working "non-bonus"
levels, - in other words they were doing a basic days work for a
days basic pay. In the circumstances they were not entitled to
finish early by discounting production for down-time.
Accordingly the Court is of the view that the Company was entitled
to act as it did and does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
39 HOUR WEEK
13. It is clear from the evidence presented at the hearing that
the conventional area is operating at efficiencies lower than its
capacity and that on average actual time worked is significantly
less than 39 hours per week. Accordingly the Court recommends
that current output targets should be maintained on the reduction
of the working week to 39 hours.
SENIORITY OF CHARGEHANDS
14. Having regard to the qualifications and skills required of
shift-leaders for the moulding area the Court considers that the
Company are justified in their view that the conventional
chargehands should not be regarded as having seniority rights in
the injection moulding area. The Court accordingly does not
recommend concession of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Kevin Heffernan
24th November, 1989 ----------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman