Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90346 Case Number: LCR12966 Section / Act: S67 Parties: THERMO KING EUROPE - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of the Maynard Operation Sequence Technique (M.O.S.T.).
Recommendation:
7. The Court notes that there is no objection in principle to
synthetic data for determining standards.
It is clear that the use of a video camera is not a familiar tool
of measurement and the trail period has not removed employee
disquiet nor indeed established the reality of the benefits
envisaged by the Company. The Court therefore recommends that
there should be a further trial period of 12 months during which
particular attention should be paid to the employees comments
regarding studies being conducted under "ideal conditions".
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90346 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12966
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: THERMO KING EUROPE
(Represented by the Federated of Irish Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of the Maynard Operation
Sequence Technique (M.O.S.T.).
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986, the Company decided to introduce the M.O.S.T. system
to establish time standards. The M.O.S.T. system is a synthetic
industrial engineering technique which uses video equipment to
record work activities. The Union agreed to the introduction of
M.O.S.T. for a 6 month trial period provided certain conditions
were met. The Company agreed to the Union's conditions and the
trial period went ahead from April to October, 1987. At the end
of the trial period the Company said that they had not achieved
full use of the system and requested an extension of the trial
period. The Union refused the request on the basis that the
Company had not complied with all the agreed conditions for the
trial period and that there was no benefit in the M.O.S.T. system
of evaluating particular jobs. The issues was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 20th October, 1987.
At a conciliation conference held on 17th December, 1987, the
Industrial Relations Officer proposed that:-
(i) the 3 representatives nominated by the Union
would attend a training course due to commence
in January, 1988;
(ii) on completion of the course a 6 month trial of
the system commence;
(iii) that the system not be used pending (ii).
3. The Union rejected the proposals and the matter was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court in LCR11698 of 23rd February, 1988, recommended as follows:-
"The Court, having carefully considered the submissions
made by the parties, is of the view that the proposals
put forward by the Industrial Relations Officer at the
conciliation conference held on 17th December, 1987,
should be accepted by the parties."
4. The Court's Recommendation was accepted by both sides and was
implemented during the last quarter of 1988. During the trial
period a variation of the technique - U.M.S. (Universal
Maintenance Systems) was discussed. This system is similar in
concept to M.O.S.T. and involves the use of video equipment.
Towards the end of the trial period the Union submitted an 18
point document on the issue. The Company on 24th October, 1989,
confirmed acceptance of the Union's points. The Union, following
a ballot in November, 1989, indicated that the workers were not
prepared to co-operate with the ongoing use of M.O.S.T. or U.M.S.
as they found the use of the video equipment disconcerting. On
4th May, 1990, the dispute was again the subject of a conciliation
conference, however, no agreement could be reached. On 26th June,
1990, the issue was referred again to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 16th July, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union in February, 1990 convened a meeting of the
workers to discuss the issue. Management were invited to
address the workers. Management's address was followed by an
immediate ballot of the workforce which rejected the use of
these techniques by an overwhelming majority, (this for the
2nd time). The workers have co-operated with the system
during trail periods but will no longer do so as they find it
disconcerting. The workers also complain that the system is
being used in an ideal 'set up situation' which does not
reflect actual everyday operation.
2. The Union has a pro-active approach to new technology
and modern methods of work. On this occasion, regard must be
had for the workforce's view, especially since the method has
been tested.
3. The Company has, in imposing these new techniques,
relied on an interim agreement of November, 1984, Clause 3 of
which states: "synthetic data to be used as a means of
establishing standards at 75 B.S.I.". This agreement has been
superceeded by an agreement on the introduction of 87.5 B.S.I.
The use of video cameras is not synthetic data nor can it
establish synthetic data.
4. The Company has proposed discussions on a
rationalisation of the existing pay structure in return for
the introduction of 100 B.S.I. standard. The introduction of
the proposed work method are inappropriate pending the
conclusion of negotiations on the new pay structure and new
standard.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has been most concerned and surprised by the
Union's rejection of the M.O.S.T. system. The Company had
been under the impression that the Union was satisfied with
the method.
2. The Company has responded to the points raised by the
Union at the end of the trial period. The Company has
accepted the points and have given assurance on them. The
Company has done everything it can to alleviate Union fears.
3. The M.O.S.T. system is in general use in factories.
Indeed, the Union visited 2 factories where the technique was
in use to see its operation first hand. The technique is
simply a method for the collection of synthetic data and is
seen as essential for the development of the Company's
operations.
4. It is vital for the ongoing introduction of advanced
manufacturing techniques in the Company that the M.O.S.T. and
U.M.S. techniques are accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court notes that there is no objection in principle to
synthetic data for determining standards.
It is clear that the use of a video camera is not a familiar tool
of measurement and the trail period has not removed employee
disquiet nor indeed established the reality of the benefits
envisaged by the Company. The Court therefore recommends that
there should be a further trial period of 12 months during which
particular attention should be paid to the employees comments
regarding studies being conducted under "ideal conditions".
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
1st August, 1990 ---------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman