Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90345 Case Number: LCR12972 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PFIZER CHEMICAL CORPORATION - and - ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION |
Dispute involving two electricians concerning proposed new reporting procedures.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions, oral and
written, of the parties, finds it regrettable and not conducive to
the development and maintenance of good industrial relations, that
precipative action was taken by both parties in dealing with this
issue.
The Court has noted that it is not the intention of the Company to
remove the foremen supervisory level in the Company. The Court
accepts that the areas where the dispute arose were small sections
within the Company.
Given all of the circumstances of the case it is the view of the
Court that the Electrical Foreman employed in the Chemical Plant
should assume a supervisory role to be called upon in
circumstances where an issue arises impinging on the craft of the
electrician in the sections in dispute.
In all other respects supervision should be exercised as outlined
by Management.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90345 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12972
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PFIZER CHEMICAL CORPORATION
AND
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute involving two electricians concerning proposed new
reporting procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arises from a re-organisation of the management
structure of the Company's chemicals operation which impacted on
the reporting relationships of all levels of staff. Under the old
structure there was a Fermentation Plant, a Recovery Plant and a
Utilities Plant. The new structure provides for the amalgamation
of the Fermentation Plant and the Recovery Plant to form the
Chemicals Plant. The Fermentation Plant supplied an engineering
service to the site (electrical, carpentry, scaffolding etc.) with
the Utilities electrician reporting to the Fermentation electrical
foreman. The Company's proposed changes mean that henceforth the
Utilities electrician would report to the Utilities engineer and
the site electrician report to the site engineer. The Union
objected to this. In its view an electrician must report through
an electrical foreman only. The Union proposed an alternative
structure whereby its members would be appointed as chargehands
and report directly to the engineers thereby providing the Company
with the structures it required without totally diluting the old
system. This was rejected by the Company.
3. The Company implemented the changes on the 16th May, 1990 but
the workers concerned refused to work them and placed unofficial
pickets on the plant on the 17th May. They resumed work under
protest on the 18th on the basis that the Union would proceed with
a ballot for industrial action. A conciliation conference was
held on the 6th June but failed to resolve the dispute which was
then referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. On the 2nd July the Union served 14 days' strike
notice. A Court hearing was held on the 11th July, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the commencement of the Company's operations, the
system of supervision has always been that electricians were
directly supervised by a foreman electrician. Therefore, a
well-defined custom and practice of supervision has been in
existence in the Company, which is compatible with the
supervisory structures in plants of similar size.
2. Management changed this system unilaterally, without any
genuine attempt to accommodate the claimants' concern at the
changes. The implementation of these changes was a clear
breach of the Demarcation Clause (Clause 28) in the
Company/Union Agreement relating to the status quo being
maintained.
3. The Company's re-organisation involves a transfer of work
from the foremen electricians to the engineers and has
implications for the entire plant. In addition it also has
the affect of closing off promotional opportunities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Court is being asked by the Union to validate its
position in one of two ways, either
(a) affirm the Union's stated position that its members do
not have to work to managerial reporting structure which
they consider unacceptable, or
(b) recommend the promotion of the site and Utilities
electricians to working chargehands and thus enable them
to accept the change of structure.
2. This organisational change is part of the Company's
ongoing efforts to improve efficiency and reduce costs which
is necessary to ensure the viability of the business in a
fiercely competitive market. This Company, no less than any
other company, cannot create jobs, be they supervisory or
managerial, which are not justified by the current needs of
the business. The structure now in place is deemed to be the
most effective and efficient way to manage this part of the
Company's operations.
3. What the Union is seeking could have profound effects on
organisational structures for many companies if the principle
of its case was supported. The Company could not accept that
the Union's case stands up to any objective scrutiny because
in essence it is saying that a qualified electrician can only
report to a person at a higher level who has a time-served
electrical qualification. This contradicts the entire
rationale for having a managerial structure which reflects the
multidisciplinary nature of such a role, which is a feature of
the Utilities and Project Engineers in the Company. The Union
argument has a significant narrowing effect on such a
managerial structure which Management would find difficult to
accept as beneficial to the effective running of the business.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions, oral and
written, of the parties, finds it regrettable and not conducive to
the development and maintenance of good industrial relations, that
precipative action was taken by both parties in dealing with this
issue.
The Court has noted that it is not the intention of the Company to
remove the foremen supervisory level in the Company. The Court
accepts that the areas where the dispute arose were small sections
within the Company.
Given all of the circumstances of the case it is the view of the
Court that the Electrical Foreman employed in the Chemical Plant
should assume a supervisory role to be called upon in
circumstances where an issue arises impinging on the craft of the
electrician in the sections in dispute.
In all other respects supervision should be exercised as outlined
by Management.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___9th___August,___1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman