Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89900 Case Number: LCR12788 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ARTHUR GUINNESS AND SON COMPANY (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS |
Dispute concerning the replacement of a boilermaker and a supervisor.
Recommendation:
12
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89900 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12788
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ARTHUR GUINNESS AND SON COMPANY (DUBLIN) LIMITED
AND
GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the replacement of a boilermaker and a
supervisor.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1989 the supervisor of the Boilermaker's shop, having
reached 65 years of age, retired in the normal manner. In
September, 1989 a boilermaker resigned under the Company's
Voluntary Parting Terms (V.P.T.). The structure prior to these
departures was:
1 Supervisor
2 Non-working foremen
2 Leading hands
9 Boilermakers.
3. The Union sought replacements for the supervisor and the
boilermaker who left. The Company responded that it had no
requirement to maintain the supervisory structure at its present
level as shop numbers had fallen from 36 in 1982 to 17. The Union
indicated that it would be prepared to consider the
disestablishment of one boilermaker position provided the
supervisory structure was left in tact. Discussions at local
level resulted in the Company offering to promote 1 foreman into
the supervisory vacancy to give the following structure:-
1 Supervisor
1 Foreman
2 Leading hands
8 Boilermakers
4. As this offer did not meet the Union's aspirations the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
18th October, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on 7th
December, 1989.
5. At the conciliation conference the Company revised its
position to provide as follows:-
1 Supervisor
2 Working foremen
1 Leading hand
8 Boilermakers
on the basis that this would be without prejudice to future
discussions and that it would not be an acceptance of any
established number. The Union side responded by putting a
proposal of:
1 Supervisor
1 Working Foreman
1 Non-working foreman
1 Leading hand
subject to an establishment of 12 boilermakers in all.
As no agreement was reached the parties consented to a referral to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 30th January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In 1982 the Company introduced a Future Competitiveness
Plan (F.C.P.) under which the Company had a target figure of 6
boilermakers. The Union has never accepted this figure and
only agreed to the F.C.P. on the understanding that, as the
Plan was voluntary, each individual who wished to avail of
Voluntary Parting Terms would be discussed and agreed with the
Union before departure would take place. During the
three/four years of the Plan 9 boilermakers left, retired or
transferred resulting each time in an agreed reduction of the
establishment of boilermakers.
2. In June, 1987 the Company introduced its Continuing
Competitiveness Plan (C.C.P.) under which it envisaged the
elimination of all boilermakers. The Union informed the
Company that it could never accept the elimination of the
boilermaker grade and that it was prepared to discuss job
reductions provided the Company could show that the workload
had decreased.
6. 3. It has always been the normal custom and practice to
replace boilermakers who left in order to maintain the agreed
establishment. A post was disestablished only by agreement
between the Company and the Union. The last time the Union
agreed to the disestablishment of a post was in December, 1987
when a boilermaker retired. It was mutually agreed at that
time that the establishment number of boilermakers would be
14.
4. One of the principal reasons given by the Company for
reducing the establishment of boilermakers is the assertion by
the Company of a reduction of work for the boilermakers at
Guinness. This argument fails and is erroneous because when
the Company sought "and indeed achieved" substantial job
reductions in their last plan they used the exact same
arguments about the reduction of boilermakers work within
Guinness and are again now instancing the same areas and
plants on this occasion to substantiate their claim. The
Company also stated at that time that the implementation of
the Plan was to secure jobs for the present and for the
future.
5. In the late 70's the Company, after an in-depth study of
the boilermakers shop, decided that with the location and
spread of boilermaking work across the 60 - 70 acres of the
Brewery, that it was necessary to appoint an additional
foreman to the existing shop structure. While the geography
and nature of some of the work has changed, the workload has
increased and the original reason for the additional foreman
i.e. location of boilermakers work throughout the vastness of
the Brewery and the effective and efficient running of the
boilermakers workshops, remains unchanged.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The overall shop numbers have fallen from 36 in 1982 to 17
to-date. The Supervisory structure of one Supervisor, two
Foremen and 2 Leading hands has remained unaltered. The
Company's position is that the work requirement can be met
with a reduction in the Supervisory structure.
2. The Company and the Boilermakers Union, under the Future
Competitiveness Plan (F.C.P.), entered into an agreement in
December, 1982 by which the following was agreed:-
(a) That the Boilermakers accepted the end position of 6
Crafts.
(b) The Company was ........ " prepared to maintain the
existing number of Foremen posts until the number of
Boilermakers is reduced to a level which makes the
supervision of the work feasible with less Supervision".
(Clause 6 of December, 1982 Agreement).
In fact as the FCP was based on voluntary retirements as
opposed to compulsory redundancies, the agreed reductions have
yet to be achieved. The Company contends that the reductions
in overall numbers which have taken place to-date are
sufficient to invoke Clause 6 of the December, 1982 Agreement.
7. 3. In April, 1987 the Company presented a review of its
competitiveness to all representatives within the Group. The
review outlined that there was a need to continue the
competitiveness programme initiated in 1982 in order to meet
the challenges facing the Company. The key emphasis of the
Continuing Competitiveness Plan, presented to a representative
bodies in June, 1987, was the need to concentrate on the core
business. In this context, the Company's position is that
there is not a continuous core requirement on the site which
would justify the ongoing retention of a Boilermaking Shop.
The Company, therefore, is not in a recruitment position for
Boilermakers.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court has considered the submissions and arguments put by
the parties at the hearing and has studied the backing papers
subsequently submitted. It is clear that natural wastage,
resignation and voluntary departure of staff have resulted in
reduced numbers of boilermakers and that in fact work requirements
rather than any historical notion of "establishment" have been the
factor deciding manning levels.
The Court considers that this is the appropriate way to consider
staffing requirements and that neither the Company nor the Union
should have an inflexible approach to staffing levels outside of
the circumstances of the business at the time an issue arises.
The reduction in the number of boilermakers since 1982 together
with the unchallenged Clause 6 of the Company's letter of 15th
December, 1982 justifies the Company concern regarding the
continuation of the level of supervision that existed up to May,
1989. However, the Court considers that changes should be
undertaken on a gradual basis and accordingly recommends the
acceptance by both sides for the following structure for the
immediate future:-
Supervisor 1
Non-Working Foreman 1
Working Foreman 1
Leading Hand 1
Boilermakers 8
_____
12
The position of non-working foreman to be reserved for the
particular foreman referred to at the hearing. If that person is
not available for work, the post should then be considered as a
Working Foreman position. When further changes occur in the work
requirements or manning levels of the Boilermakers shop, the
structure appropriate to the work requirement at that time should
then be agreed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Keven Heffernan
___12th___April,___1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Chairman