Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89476 Case Number: LCR12580 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of (a) a Quality Manager System, (b) an Automatic Handling System and (c) other changes in work practices.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has carefully considered the issues raised before it
at the hearing. It takes the view that insofar as all concerned
have a direct and vital interest in maintaining the quality of the
Company's product to required standards no payment is warranted
for the introduction of the Quality Managed System, which
formalises the responsibilities of individual employees, a
responsibility which always existed.
As for the claim for losses involved arising from the Automated
Handling System, and the issues raised by the Company requiring
changes in work practices it appears to the Court that no reliable
basis exists for recommending on these issues as there exists a
fundamental and potentially dangerous disagreement on the basis on
which the output of the plant is to be measured and therefore
doubt as to the obligations of the workers concerned under the
terms of that agreement.
The Court therefore recommends that the terms offered by the
Company be accepted pending a review of the 1980 agreement and
resolution of this matter.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89476 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12580
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of (a) a Quality Manager
System, (b) an Automatic Handling System and (c) other changes in
work practices.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which was formerly Star Plastics manufactures
plastic containers mainly for soft drinks and milk. In order to
meet its customers' demands the Company is introducing a series of
changes and improvements.
3. Two changes have been introduced since 3rd January, 1989 viz
(i) the Quality Manager System which involves evidence of machine
operators' quality control checks, product traceability positive
identification of each product and operator training and (ii) the
Automatic Handling Systems on a number of machines. The Union
lodged a claim in respect of these changes for the payment of a
lump sum of #2,000 and an increase of 5% on basic pay on the basis
that the changes resulted in increased productivity, increased
responsibility and reduced overtime earnings. The Company
rejected the claim on the grounds that it already had paid for
such changes under a 1980 productivity agreement. The Company
offered to pay compensation of #250 over two phases provided other
changes in work practices were implemented (introduction of new
machines, banking machines, recycling of waste, elimination of
time-off on church holidays etc).
4. The Union indicated that it wanted the first two points dealt
with separately and if the Company wished to introduce further
changes it would have to pay extra compensation. As no agreement
was reached at local level the issues were referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 9th January, 1989.
Conciliation conferences were held on 8th March, 1989 and 6th
April, 1989. However the parties failed to reach agreement. On
22nd June the matters were referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Cavan on 31st August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The new Quality Management System, has greatly changed the
duties and responsibilities of the workers concerned. The
workers had to undergo 20 hours special training in respect of
the new system. Further annual training will also be
necessary. The Union believes that the workers should be
rewarded financially for the additional demands placed upon
them (details supplied to the Court). It is a major factor in
attracting new business and will contribute to the generation
of substantial profits for the Company.
2. The Automatic Handling System has also increased
productivity greatly in that there are now much bigger
machines in use which require less manning. In addition to
the greater throughput, weekend overtime working has been
practically eliminated resulting in losses of approximately
#1200 for the workers concerned. For these reasons the Union
considers its claim for compensation to be fair and
reasonable.
3. In addition to the above the Company is seeking other
changes in work practice. The Company has argued that it has
already paid for this increased productivity through a 1980
Productivity Agreement. The Company maintain that the
agreement provided for a 78% man performance at that time and
it is seeking further wide ranging changes on this basis. In
fact what happened was that quotas were introduced which were
greater than what some machines could produce. This gave the
impression that there was spare capacity. This matter has
been the subject of some discussion as there is a difference
of opinion on the way quotas were set up. In some cases they
were never achieved because it was not possible. The 1980
agreement is based on quotas that were by hy-pothetical and
simply designed to give an illusion of man capacity. What the
Company did get was machine utilisation of 90% plus which is a
very high standard.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company's proposal covering quality, automation and
changed work practices arises from the need to meet customer
requirements, maintain competitiveness, expand the range of
existing business and be better prepared for the single
European Market. To this end the Company has invested heavily
in new plant and machinery. Phase 2 of the Company's
Development Plan requires further substantial investment.
Therefore it is imperative that the Company gets the full
co-operation of its workforce with the proposal for changed
work practices.
2. The Company has given a commitment that there will be no
job losses as a result of the proposed changes.
3. The proposals require that all work will be organised on
the basis of a 78% man performance. This has already been
agreed and paid for under the 1980 Productivity Agreement
(details supplied to the Court).
4. The existing rates and conditions compare more than
favourably with competitor companies. In addition to service
pay, contributory pension scheme and 21 days annual leave the
rates of pay which apply range from #153.31 a week for Grade 1
operatives to #245 a week for craft workers. Shift premia are
also paid averaging at 21.66%.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has carefully considered the issues raised before it
at the hearing. It takes the view that insofar as all concerned
have a direct and vital interest in maintaining the quality of the
Company's product to required standards no payment is warranted
for the introduction of the Quality Managed System, which
formalises the responsibilities of individual employees, a
responsibility which always existed.
As for the claim for losses involved arising from the Automated
Handling System, and the issues raised by the Company requiring
changes in work practices it appears to the Court that no reliable
basis exists for recommending on these issues as there exists a
fundamental and potentially dangerous disagreement on the basis on
which the output of the plant is to be measured and therefore
doubt as to the obligations of the workers concerned under the
terms of that agreement.
The Court therefore recommends that the terms offered by the
Company be accepted pending a review of the 1980 agreement and
resolution of this matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
29th September, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.