Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89840 Case Number: LCR12977 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WEXFORD CREAMERY LTD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for:- (A) Compensation payment for (1) loss of earnings and (2) increased productivity by Cheesemakers and Pasteurisers. (B) Productivity payment/regrading for Bulk Milk Tanker Drivers.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions and evidence from the
parties the Court is not satisfied that the claim for loss of
earnings is well founded and therefore does not recommend its
concession.
In relation to the productivity claims (including regrading for
Bulk Milk Tank Drivers) the Court finds no basis on which it could
recommend concession of the claims.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89840 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12977
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WEXFORD CREAMERY LTD
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for:-
(A) Compensation payment for (1) loss of earnings and (2)
increased productivity by Cheesemakers and
Pasteurisers.
(B) Productivity payment/regrading for Bulk Milk Tanker
Drivers.
BACKGROUND:
(A) Cheesemakers and Pasturisers:
2. 1. Wexford Creamery employs 125 workers (many seasonal) in
the manufacturing of cheese. In March, 1989, as an ongoing part
of its modernisation programme, the Company installed more vat
capacity in its plant. The Union claim that the extra vat
capacity has had the effect of (1) reducing the income of
Cheesemakers and Pasteurisers and (2) increasing productivity for
the Company. Both claims were discussed at local level. They
were the subject of a Labour Court conciliation conference on 14th
September, 1989 and on 10th November, 1989.
(B) Bulk Milk Tank Drivers:
2. The Union also lodged a claim to have Bulk Milk Tanker
Drivers regraded. Following a change in tanker vehicles 3/4 years
ago the Union claim that working condition have changed for the
drivers concerned. The issue was the subject of a Labour Court
conciliation conference on 14th September, 1989.
3. No agreement was reached at the conciliation conferences
on 14th September, 1989 and 10th November, 1989. The Union
requested a full Labour Court hearing. The Company agreed and the
Court investigated the disputes in Wexford on 15th December, 1989.
(A) Cheesemakers and Pasteuriesers
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to the installation of extra vat capacity in the
cheesemaking area, production has risen from 28 vats per day
to 32 vats. This represents a 14% increase in productivity
with a corresponding increase in the workload of Cheesemakers
and Pasteurisers.
2. The increase in daily output will effect the length of
the working season. It will have a consequential reduction in
the earning potential of the workers involved. The loss can
be measured by calculating the earnings lost due to the
reduction in overtime hours and the earnings lost due to the
shorter season. Comparing workers weekly earnings for the
period 2 April, 1988 to 15th October, 1988 with the
corresponding period of 1st April, 1989 to 14th October, 1989
the average loss per person is #10.50 per week.
3. The jobs of Cheesemakers and Pasteurisers should be
regraded to take into account the extra responsibility
associated with the increase in the amount of product and the
increased plant equipment product.
4. The direct increase to the Company in productivity
should also be shared. Workers should receive a production
bonus equal to half of the Company's productivity increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The number of vats in the cheesemaking area has
increased from seven to eight. Investment in the extra vat
capacity was necessary because the number of vats was not
sufficient to deal with the milk supply or to make optimum use
of other equipment deployed in the production process.
2. The Company must reach a level of efficiency enjoyed by
its competitors. It cannot promote a culture whereby ongoing
changes will result in a stream of claims from sectional
groups, followed by repercussive claims from other groups.
3. Details of the workers earnings for a comparable period
of time in 1988 and 1989 as submitted by the Union did not
take account of extra annual leave taken by one worker in 1989
and of the fact that another worker received an additional 142
hours pay due to holiday arrears in 1988, when compared to
1989. The adjusted earnings for 1989 confirm that the workers
concerned received an average increase in earnings of 2.75%,
thus giving them the benefit of increases due under the terms
of the Programme for National Recovery.
4. 4. There is no substantial change in the work duties of
Cheesemakers and Pasturisers to justify a productivity
payment. Prior to 1982 and to the introduction of milk
quotas, the Company had eight vats in operation. The Company
depends on the supply of raw material (milk) which is variable
from year to year. It has always stated that some variation
in earnings is likely and that it cannot guarantee that
year-on-year earnings will not show a variation.
(B) BULK MILK TANKER DRIVERS:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The job of tanker drivers has changed. A study carried
out by the Union's Industrial Engineering Department found
that there is increased physical effort in manoeuvring bigger
trucks, increased responsibility for equipment, increased
responsibility for product (drivers handle more milk) and that
greater driving skill is required.
2. The study also took an account of the collection of milk
from farms on Route 1 of the afternoon collection. It found
that the total milk collected amounted to 17853 litres while
the distance travelled was 85.4 kilometres (No delays occurred
and the driver did not rest). Arising from the findings it
was recommended that a formula be used to calculate the time
allowed for completing a collection route i.e. -
(1) The time allowed for driving should be calculated
at a speed of 32.5 km per hours.
(2) The time allowed for collection should be at the
rate of 0.4565 minutes per 100 litres.
(3) There should also be a time of 1.7 minutes per
farm.
Using the times as at 1, 2 and 3 above the total time for Route 1
should be 4 hours 20 minutes - the rates and times are set at a 75
daywork performance. If the formula as outlined was agreed to by
the Company workers would be guaranteed a set number of hours for
doing each route. The actual completion time for the type of
truck used would then be irrelevant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company's transport fleet was changed 3/4 years ago
as the existing fleet was inefficient by reference to others
in use throughout the country. Some of the trucks have larger
tanks than that which was in use but all of them are more
comfortable as a working environment.
6. 2. There has been no loss of earnings for the workers
concerned, nor has there been any substantial change in work
duties. Driver rates of pay are in line with rates applicable
in other comparable creameries/co-operatives. (Details of
rates of pay applicable in other creameries/co-operatives
supplied to the Court).
3. The Company must replace its assets. Not to do so would
bring about a position of deterioration and unsustaiinable
inefficiency leading to a loss of business and jobs.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions and evidence from the
parties the Court is not satisfied that the claim for loss of
earnings is well founded and therefore does not recommend its
concession.
In relation to the productivity claims (including regrading for
Bulk Milk Tank Drivers) the Court finds no basis on which it could
recommend concession of the claims.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
13th August, 1990 ---------------
A. McG/U.S. Deputy Chairman