Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90322 Case Number: LCR12973 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED - and - SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Company concerning a claim by 70 Knitting Department workers and 4 Electrical Department workers for an increase of #20 in respect of the installation of a data capture machine.
Recommendation:
5. The Dextralog should be installed and the workers concerned
should co-operate in the operation of the new monitoring system.
If the efficiency levels reach 96% consistently, both parties
should agree to review the scheme at that time with a view to
establishing the validity or otherwise of increased bonus payments
beyond that point.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90322 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12973
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Company concerning a claim by 70 Knitting
Department workers and 4 Electrical Department workers for an
increase of #20 in respect of the installation of a data capture
machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's Knitting Department has about 500 knitting
machines in continuous operation on a three-shift basis.
Currently, the recording of breakdowns is done manually by the
operators. The Company say that it is not feasible, given the
number of machines, to examine downtime except on a global basis.
As a result, the Company proposes the installation of a new data
capturing system, known as Dextralog, in the Knitting Department.
Whilst the Union do not object to the new monitoring system in
principle, they claim that it will lead to a 2% increase in
productivity and therefore, that extra remuneration is warranted.
The Union claimed a wage increase of #20 per worker. The Company
rejected the Union's claim and on 13th October, 1989, the issue
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
4th April, 1990, (by agreement the parties delayed pursuit of the
issue), and on 13th June, 1990, the issue was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the matter on 20th June, 1990, in Cork.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Where large installations of automatic machinery are
involved, the maximisation of efficiency is essential in
maintaining competitiveness. This requires collecting
meaningful, accurate and timely data about what is happening
at each machine at any point in time. The Dextralog system
provides such information and is used in other plants in both
Ireland and Britain. The Company maintains that the Dextralog
is an essential requirement for the new production process.
3. 2. Installation of the system will increase efficiency in the
Knitting Department. This increased efficiency will be
machine generated. The operators will automatically benefit
through increased bonus earnings because the Knitting Bonus
Scheme is directly related to machine efficiency rather than
workload.
3. The Dextralog system operates almost automatically. There
will be a requirement to enter certain data via a keyboard in
respect of parts consumption, reasons for downtime etc... This
requirement is insignificant as it merely replaces the manual
records already maintained by the operators.
4. The operators have expressed concern on the grounds that
the system creates a situation of constant supervision. The
Company believe there are no grounds for concern. The
operators will have full and ready access to the system. The
current Efficiency Scheme is group based, embracing all shifts
and there are no plans to change this.
5. The current Company/Union Agreement contains the 'no
further cost increasing claims' clause of the P.N.R. and a
clause on 'co-operation with and consultation in advance of,
on-going change'. The Union's claim is contrary to both these
clauses.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company have introduced a number of apparently minor
changes over the last decade. The cumulative effect of these
changes is that productivity has increased. Over the years
these changes have had a major impact. However, the Knitting
Department staff have received nothing in return by way of
increased remuneration.
2. The workers have always co-operated with on-going changes
and will continue to co-operate and consult in advance of
on-going change. Even in this particular case the workers
were prepared to have the Dextralog system introduced pending
future investigation. The Union believes that the
introduction of the new system will bring about a productivity
increase of about 2%. Therefore, the operators should be
entitled to an increase in the event of increased
productivity.
3. The new system is very like a Tackograph. It can at some
stage in the future be linked to a computer system and the
operators will be expected to programme data into the
computer. This will increase their responsibilities.
4. Whilst a claim for a #20 increase has been made, the Union
is prepared to negotiate a productivity linked system. The
present efficiency rate stands at 94.5%, which yields
approximately #43. The Union believes that improving this
would be in the long-term interests of both workers and the
Company.
4. 5. There is a new piece of apparatus and a new modification
on machines and irrespective of what the implications are with
regard to the P.N.R., the Union hopes that a more enlightened
proposal would be looked at and that the parties could enter
positive talks.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Dextralog should be installed and the workers concerned
should co-operate in the operation of the new monitoring system.
If the efficiency levels reach 96% consistently, both parties
should agree to review the scheme at that time with a view to
establishing the validity or otherwise of increased bonus payments
beyond that point.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Kevin Heffernan
___9th___August,___1990. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Chairman