Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89839 Case Number: LCR12680 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning manning levels in distillation plants.
Recommendation:
7. In the light of the submissions made, the Court is satisfied
that the plant in question (F Plant) is simply a modified
replacement of the previous equipment to which the agreements of
1984 and 1986 applied. In the circumstances the Court recommends
that the Union agree to operate the plant on the manning proposed
by the Company subject to the Company's agreement to a review of
the manning after a period of three months.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89839 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12680
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED)
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning manning levels in distillation plants.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures cyanoacrylate adhesives for the
industrial and consumer markets. The manufacturing process is
located in its chemical plant in Ballyfermot and is divided into
three processing operations:
- crude monomer manufacture
- pure monomer manufacture
- adhesive manufacture.
The current comprehensive agreement between the Company and the
Union specifies agreed manning levels for each of the processing
operations. The current dispute relates specifically to the pure
monomer processing stage and the manning levels associated with
such.
3. In 1984 the Company entered into discussions with the Union to
allow for the operation of an existing distillation plant (S
Plant) in parallel with the original distillation unit (R Plant)
by a single plant operator (formerly there had been two
operators). The agreement provided for a maximum weekly run time
of 16 hours for S Plant and compensation was agreed for acceptance
of the agreement (details supplied to the Court). In 1985 the
agreement was amended to allow for continuous operation of the two
distillation plants without restriction on either running time or
cycle time and compensation was again paid for acceptance of this
change (details supplied to the Court).
4. In November, 1988, the Company decided to replace S Plant with
a new plant (F Plant). The Union was informed of this in
February, 1989 and the new plant was installed during the annual
plant shutdown in August, 1989. The Company claims that the
Company/Union Agreement covering the manning levels of R and S
Plants applies to the running of R and F Plants. The Union
however contends that the agreement on the one man manning level
related specifically to R and S Plants and could not be
transferred to R and F Plants as the workload attached to the
operation of F Plant was far greater than that of S Plant. The
Union therefore sought to have the manning level revert to the
pre-1984 situation (i.e. a two man operation). As local level
discussion failed to resolve the dispute the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 22nd
September, 1989. A conciliation conference on the 25th October
failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 14th
November. A Court hearing was held on the 5th December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The C.A. operators have to-date refused to operate R and F
Plants with one man. They are however prepared to adhere to
the terms of Clause 7 of the Company/Union Agreement which
reads as follows:
"In the case where individual or group workloads may be
affected due to increased productivity, the Company
agrees to establish workloads in agreement with the
Union, which agreement will not unreasonably be
withheld."
2. This clause means that existing agreements on manning
levels will be maintained until such time as new workloads
have been established. The Union cannot accept the Company's
position that the Union should first accept the manning level
and then seek to establish the new workload.
3. The material needed to charge F Plant is far greater in
volume than that needed to charge the old S Plant. The new
plant is charged from industrial bulk containers (I.B.C.s)
which are far greater in size than the 45 gallon drums needed
to charge S Plant.
4. To empty an I.B.C. an operator must tilt the container to
take out the last 20 - 30 kgs. of monomer. Each I.B.C. weighs
100 kgs. (and is 4 ft. tall) at the stage where the operator
must tilt it. It usually requires two to three attempts to
pull an I.B.C. over and the Union has serious concern for the
safety of the operators. Due to inadequate storage space an
operator has to often physically move up to twelve I.B.C.s in
order to charge F Plant. The amount of residue alone, run off
F Plant, is greater in volume than the total volume of
material handled in relation to the old S. Plant. The
workload is further increased by a change in the manufacture
of stock solution.
5. The Company claimed that the periods of low activity have
increased because of computerisation of the manufacturing
process but in fact the operators are now required to record
more information than ever on the batch sheets.
6. Management does not have the right to unilaterally alter
agreed manning levels before establishing the new workload.
The Union is prepared to negotiate with the Company once the
new workload on R and F Plants has been established.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has an agreement with the Union which covers
the operation of two distillation plants in parallel by one
plant operator without restriction on running time or cycle
time. The specific reference to S / R Plant in the 1984 and
1986 agreements is used simply as a means of identifying the
different processing operations. The Company has paid on two
separate occasions for the concept of operating two
distillation plants in parallel, firstly on a restricted basis
and secondly for the specific removal of this restriction on
both running time and cycle time. Furthermore the Union has
signed an agreement that accepts final payment for parallel
operation and which refers future claims for process changes
to the existing comprehensive agreement.
2. The Company is operating with full regard to the existing
comprehensive agreement particularly page 33 which allows the
Company to;
"(a) Install new plant and equipment."
"(b) Change, relocate, install new or existing plant and
equipment."
The Company is not seeking to alter existing manning levels or
to make any person redundant. It is seeking to replace old
unreliable equipment in order to maintain existing market
share and prevent loss of business due to inability to supply
product. The Company expects the Union to honour the existing
agreement in this regard.
3. The upgrading of old antiquated process plant, the
application of automation technology and the move to 1000
Litre product containers on both distillation plants has
substantially reduced the manual workload associated with the
operation of the distillation stage of the process and F Plant
in particular has contributed significantly to the improvement
in the quality of life in the C.A. monomer processing plant.
4. The Company, as is its right, seeks to maintain its
position in the marketplace by sound investment strategies but
this is being undermined by the failure of the Union to honour
an existing agreement pending arbitration, resulting in
increased costs associated with manufacturing pure
cyanoacrylate monomer and, more seriously, forcing the Company
to run down existing stocks completely, leaving it exposed in
the event of a major plant failure.
5. The Company fully accepts that the Union has a legitimate
right to pursue both productivity and loss of earnings claims
which may arise out of any new investment and in fact has
encouraged the Union to pursue the existing mechanisms for
such claims. The Union has refused to pursue this route.
6. The Company fully recognises the right of the Union to
negotiate change in circumstances where individual workloads
may be affected. In recognition of this right it wrote to the
Union during July in advance of the commissioning of the new
plant and specifically mapped out the advantages of the new
plant in a detailed document prepared by the Plant Manager and
the Plant Superintendent. Furthermore the Company offered in
that same submission a formal mechanism whereby the parallel
plant operation would be subject to a three month workload
analysis after which a formal review would take place. This
was refused by the Union.
7. The new plant coupled with the changes in procedure
adopted on the old R Plant have substantially improved the
working conditions of the plant operators who work in this
plant area (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
7. In the light of the submissions made, the Court is satisfied
that the plant in question (F Plant) is simply a modified
replacement of the previous equipment to which the agreements of
1984 and 1986 applied. In the circumstances the Court recommends
that the Union agree to operate the plant on the manning proposed
by the Company subject to the Company's agreement to a review of
the manning after a period of three months.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
11th December, 1989. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.