Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90167 Case Number: LCR12803 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AMICON (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of world class manufacturing.
Recommendation:
5. The Court in the light of the oral and written submissions of
the parties recommends the issues in dispute be the subject of
urgent further discussions between the parties at a conciliation
conference. The Court is prepared to make available the services
of an Industrial Relations Officer for this purpose. In the event
that these discussions do not lead to a resolution of the issues
in the dispute the Court will make a conclusive recommendation
based on the submissions made by the parties at to-day's (19th
April, 1990) hearing.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90167 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12803
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AMICON (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of world class
manufacturing.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of products for the
healthcare and laboratory applications industry and employs 50
people at its plant in Raheen Industrial Estate, Limerick. The
Company is part of the Amicon division of W.R. Grace & Company
(based in U.S.A.). In an effort to become more competitive the
Company, with the support of the parent company, decided in April,
1989 to introduce a newer and more streamlined form of
manufacturing called "world class manufacturing" (W.C.M.). The
Company claims W.C.M. involves the transfer of responsibility from
inspectors to direct operatives who would be rewarded in line with
the additional skills and responsibilities required. The Company
had negotiations with the workforce and W.C.M. was introduced for
two product lines. In return for the introduction of W.C.M. the
Company proposed to negotiate pay increases on an individual basis
for these operatives directly involved in W.C.M. The Union viewed
W.C.M. as productivity by another name and proposed that a
grading/job evaluation should be carried out. This proposal was
rejected by the Company and in November, 1989 the Union informed
the Company that no further co-operation would extend to the
introduction of W.C.M. in any area where it is not already in
operation until agreement on terms are agreed. Further
negotiations were held on the terms for introduction of W.C.M. but
no agreement was reached and the matter was referred on 21st
February, 1990 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Conciliation conferences were held on 28th February, 1990 and 8th
March, 1990. The Company's position was set out in a letter from
the F.I.E. dated 16th February, 1990 and in a detailed proposal
made at the conciliation talks (details supplied to the Court).
The Company's proposals are summarised as follows:-
a) All groups would receive a pay increase of 5% from June 1st,
1990 to include the third and final phase of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.)
b) The additional payments over and above the terms of the P.N.R.
set out in (a) above, would be made in return for the
following:-
(i) Full flexibility and mobility of labour, between
grades and departments, both now and in the future,
arising from the introduction of such
management/operational processes, such as W.C.M.
(ii) Co-operation with any new technologies/equipment
which may be introduced, so as to enhance or promote
the performance of the Company, and which may be
required from time to time.
__________________________________________________________________
CATEGORY Current + W.C.M. Increases + Payround +Service Awards
Rate (+#2.50) (+#2.46) +PNR (5%) Including PNR &
Service Rounds
Existing Gr. 1 Gr. 2 Gr.1 Gr.2 5 YR. 10 YR.
__________________________________________________________________
Membrane
Rate 154.28 164.34 166.80 172.56 175.14 179.99 184.88
Assembly
Operator
Rate 161.84 164.34 166.80 172.56 175.14 179.99 184.88
Rig
Operator
Rate 174.82 183.56 188.41 193.24
_________________________________________________________________
Inspectors, senior inspectors, Group Leaders, Maintenance
Technicians and General Operators, to get increase of 5% including
P.N.R. on 1st June, 1990.
This offer was rejected by the Union who claimed 10% across the
board for increased flexibility, improved skills, additional
responsibility, and productivity. No agreement was reached and
the matter was referred on 27th March, 1990 to a full hearing of
the Labour Court which took place on 19th April, 1990. A
recommendation issued by letter on 24th April, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has no objection in principle to the
introduction of W.C.M. However the increased payments offered
by the Company are not sufficient having regard to the
increased productivity and flexibility involved.
2. The introduction of W.C.M. will be of enormous benefit to
the Company. It will lead to greater efficiency, increased
flexibility, and greater productivity. Operatives will be
required to take more responsibility and learn new skills.
They will also be responsible for production documentation and
records. The Union believes that pay levels for the enhanced
duties as proposed by the Company would in industry generally
be far in excess of the Company's offer.
3. The Union is willing to have a work study carried out by
the Company to calculate the extent of the jobs as long as the
Union's work study person is allowed to examine and comment on
the work, if necessary.
4. The requirements of the Company under W.C.M. are simply
productivity under a different name. The Union is seeking
across the board payments (details supplied) of the order of
10% or that the Company and Union use the services of a
conciliation officer and/or work study experts in an effort to
reach agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is seeking to introduce W.C.M. against a
background of an increasingly competitive market environment.
The Company is facing increased competition both from sister
plants and competitors worldwide. The introduction of W.C.M.
is an essential ingredient in redressing the serious problems
in regard to quality, service, and price. It is in the
interests of the workforce and the management that W.C.M. is
implemented as soon as possible.
2. The principle in regard to W.C.M. is to reward individuals
who take on additional skills and responsibility, and to have
inter-departmental flexibility. However, W.C.M. must be cost
effective and the Company therefore rejects the Union's claim
for an across the board increase.
3. What is effectively happening in W.C.M. is the transfer of
skill and responsibility levels from inspectors, who are
currently paid at a higher rate of pay, back to direct
operatives. Therefore the logic would be that the direct
operatives would receive the same rate of pay as the
inspectors currently enjoy. An increase for operatives, not
involved in W.C.M., is not justified as they would not be
required to take on higher levels of skill and responsibility.
4. 4. W.C.M. is in the process of being introduced in a number
of companies throughout the country. In no other company has
the issue of across the board payments been discussed.
5. The parent company is still supportive of the plant in
Raheen. However, it views the present situation as very
serious and has given local management twelve months to
rectify the current problems or possible closure will follow.
It is vital that agreement on the implementation of W.C.M. be
reached as soon as possible.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court in the light of the oral and written submissions of
the parties recommends the issues in dispute be the subject of
urgent further discussions between the parties at a conciliation
conference. The Court is prepared to make available the services
of an Industrial Relations Officer for this purpose. In the event
that these discussions do not lead to a resolution of the issues
in the dispute the Court will make a conclusive recommendation
based on the submissions made by the parties at to-day's (19th
April, 1990) hearing.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___1st____June,___1990. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman