Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90643 Case Number: ARB903 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning loss of earnings arising from the reconfiguration of the blowing shops.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties on shop
reconfiguration in the blowing area and having regard to the skill
change required of blowers and notwithstanding their earlier
experience on the particular job, the Court decides that the
Company's proposal on full-protection should be amended on the
following conditions:-
Week 1 = "Lead in"
Week 2,3,4 = For a return of 80% of Masters Earnings.
Week 5,6,7 = " " " " 85% " " "
Week 8,9, 10 = " " " " 90% " " "
Week 11, 12 = " " " " 95% " " "
Week 13 + onwards = Piece Rate working.
Where the above targets are not achieved, payment will be scaled
back accordingly.~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
21st December, 1990 ---------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90643 ARBITRATION NO. ARB390
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 70
PARTIES: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning loss of earnings arising from
the reconfiguration of the blowing shops.
BACKGROUND:
2. Reconfiguration is the term used to describe changes in the
composition of blowing teams which become necessary when changes
occur in demand for the Company's products. Consequently,
experienced craftsmen are selected and formed into teams (shops)
to best suit the requirements of the blowing programme and
customer needs. During early 1990, the Company made a number of
proposals regarding the reconfiguration of the blowing shops. The
proposals involved the reconfiguration of heavy and light heavy
shops into wine shops. The positions in the heavy shops are paid
a rate 7.5% above the average rate in the wine shops. Heavy shops
are also paid on average as against piece rate in the wine shops.
The Company offered to protect the averages of individuals in the
reconfigured shops for a maximum of four weeks provided they
maintain piece rate effort. As part of the return to work
settlement proposals following the recent 14 week strike which
commenced on 5th April, 1990, it was agreed that the matter would
be the subject of further discussions. On 6th July, 1990, the
Company indicated that it was not intended to diminish wages
through co-operation with reconfiguration and that any problems
which may arise in the area would be dealt with sympathetically.
The Union rejected the Company's proposals on the grounds that it
was unreasonable to expect blowers who have been away the wine
shops for three to five years to return without training and be in
a position to produce 'wines' at a level that will not affect
their earnings after a period of four weeks. At a conciliation
conference held on 18th October, 1990, the Company offered to
expand the protection of the blowers earnings for an eight week
period as follows:-
Week 1 = "Lead-In"
Week 2 = for a return of 80% of Master's earnings.
Week 3/4 = " " " " 85% " " " .
Week 5/6 = " " " " 90% " " " .
Week 7/8 = " " " " 95% " " " .
Week 9 = Piece rate working.
Where above targets not reached, payment will be scaled back
accordingly.
The Company's proposal was rejected and on 5th November, 1990, the
issue was referred to the Labour Court for binding arbitration.
The Court investigated the matter at a Court hearing and visit to
the Kilbarry operation on 29th November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1985, the Company required an increase in the number
of heavy shops. In order to fill these shops the positions
were advertised and staff from the wine shops applied and got
these positions which carry a higher rate than the average in
the wine shops. The Company now expect them to transfer back
after three to five years, without training and produce
"wines" at such a level that their earnings will not be
affected. The Union believes that this is impossible and
would consequently have a dramatic effect on the workers'
earnings.
2. Reconfiguration of some of the shops has already
occurred. Pending the Court's investigation a situation arose
whereby some of the workers had virtually no wages due to the
Company implementing the four weeks protection proposal
(details provided).
3. There are other agreements with the Company at present
which cover other groups of workers whose conditions have
changed. These agreements provide for periods of up to six
months protection of earnings. In addition, the Company have
already agreed to protect the earnings of six stemmers in
Dungarvan who moved by agreement in September, 1989, from the
Tank Furnace back to the wine shops. Their period of
protection lasted a total of seven months.
4. The Union contends that with proper training over a six
month period, with protection of earnings, it will be possible
for the workers to reach a standard which will allow them
achieve close to their present level of earnings. However,
some will not be able to reach a stage where they can maintain
their earnings. These will have to be protected.
5. If the Company's proposals are implemented it will have
far reaching consequences for the workers' net take home pay.
Given a reasonable period of time, which the Union believes is
six months, a lot of these consequences can be avoided. It is
in the Company's interest to have the workers properly trained
and producing high qualify products while being in a position
to at least maintain their standard of living. The Union
therefore, requests the Court to recommend that a period of
six months protection of earnings be implemented with a review
of the loss of earnings at the end of this period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's position has always been that all blowers
would work on a piece rate. This is consistent with the
Union's position of maximising labour productivity.
2. The Company has been fair and reasonable in providing an
extended 'lead-in' period to enable fully qualified craftsmen
adjust to piece rate working when they are reconfigured. This
is in view of the fact that these qualified craftsmen are
returning to positions which they previously held e.g. a
stemmer now returning to a stemming position.
3. To maximise productivity and reduce costs, the Company
must get a return for the money it pays, otherwise further
costs will be added to the Company's already high costs and
the Company will become more uncompetitive. This will result
in a loss of market share and consequently a loss of jobs.
4. The Company contends that its offer of the eight week
protection period is more than adequate in the circumstances,
especially since the workers concerned are qualified blowing
craftsmen, and requests the Court to uphold this offer.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties on shop
reconfiguration in the blowing area and having regard to the skill
change required of blowers and notwithstanding their earlier
experience on the particular job, the Court decides that the
Company's proposal on full-protection should be amended on the
following conditions:-
Week 1 = "Lead in"
Week 2,3,4 = For a return of 80% of Masters Earnings.
Week 5,6,7 = " " " " 85% " " "
Week 8,9, 10 = " " " " 90% " " "
Week 11, 12 = " " " " 95% " " "
Week 13 + onwards = Piece Rate working.
Where the above targets are not achieved, payment will be scaled
back accordingly.~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
21st December, 1990 ---------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman