Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90188 Case Number: LCR12892 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CELMAC IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning (a) scrap system, (b) loss of earnings of three named employees, (c) one week's suspension of a worker, (d) 39 hour week, (e) packers bonus.
Recommendation:
18. The Court having heard the submissions of the parties both
written and oral considers that the disputes before the Court be
resolved as follows:-
(A) Scrap System.
It is clear that the identification of scrap can take some time
after initial manufacture. There is a doubtful system in
operation to determine whether or not it is an operator fault or
outside operator control.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties meet and devise
a system which will remove this lack of clarity.
(B) Loss of earnings of 3 named employees.
In the light of the points made above and as a gesture of goodwill
the Court recommends payment of the Union's claim.
(C) One week's suspension of a worker.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in
this case.
(D) 39 Hour Week.
The Court accepts that it is the Company's intention to table
proposals on the reduction in the working week. This should be
done within one month from the date of this recommendation.
(E) Packers Bonus.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90188 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CELMAC IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning (a) scrap system, (b) loss of earnings of
three named employees, (c) one week's suspension of a worker,
(d) 39 hour week, (e) packers bonus.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is based in Wicklow, is involved in the
manufacture of rigid plastic toilet seats, almost exclusively for
the export market. Following a serious of unofficial work
stoppages in 1989 an independent mediator issued a comprehensive
report and recommendation on the issues in dispute, on 12th
August, 1989. Subsequently a further 20/22 items were tabled by
the Union for discussion. Following local level discussions the
matters were referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. Conciliation conferences were held on 30th November, 1989
and 25th January, 1990 following which seven issues were left
unresolved and on 4th April, 1990 the matters were referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
hearing, which was held on 17th May, 1990 dealt with five of the
seven issues, the issue of washing-up facilities was withdrawn at
the hearing and it was agreed that the issue of protective
clothing would be deferred to a subsequent hearing.
Claim (a) Scrap System.
BACKGROUND:
3. Within the moulding department a piece rate system operates
whereby workers can earn between #250 and #350 per week. For many
years it has been agreed that where scrap or unacceptable quality
product is produced by a moulder, and the reasons for this scrap
or unacceptable quality are outside the control of the operator
then the moulder is paid for that piece at full value. Where a
moulder produces scrap or unacceptable quality product in
circumstances where it is considered to be within the control of
the moulder not to produce scrap, then the moulder is not paid for
this. The Union's position is that although a well established
system operated in the Company whereby the foreman made a record
of scrap produced and decided whether this should be paid for,
that the Company now appears to have introduced a system whereby
the responsibility for approving payment for scrap has been
shifted from the foreman to more senior management, and that this
responsibility should remain with the foreman. Management's
position is that no payment should be made if it is within the
control of the operator to produce proper product. The Company
has the right to determine this and while the practice of the
foreman continues senior management is involved if mistakes are
made.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The system which was in operation was well established and
operated on the basis of the foreman recording in the
Production Book the fact that scrap occurred on a particular
operation and deciding whether the scrap should be paid for.
The foreman due to his experience and the fact that he is in
contact with the operators across the twenty four hour shift
is the more appropriate person to assess the factors involved
in the production of scrap and should therefore have the
authority to decide. This system has served the Company and
the workers well during the many years of its existence and it
was wrong that the system should have been changed
unilaterally. The Union is not seeking to have people paid
for scrap produced through bad workmanship or negligence on
the part of the operator.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Where a moulder produces scrap or unacceptable quality
product in circumstances where it was within his control not
to, then payment cannot be made. The Company has the right to
determine this.
Claim (b) Loss of Earnings of 3 Named Employees.
BACKGROUND:
6. This involves three cases where the workers were not paid for
scrap / unacceptable quality products and are claiming payment.
In the case of two of the workers the pieces were 'twisted' and in
the case of the third worker the pieces were 'blown'. The amounts
involved are approximately #4, #5 and #28. The Union position is
that in each of the three cases the claims were approved for
payment by the foreman responsible in accordance with the
established practice of paying for scrap and that a more senior
manager overruled the decision of the foreman, which was not in
line with the custom and practice. Management's position is that
in each of the three cases avoidance of the problems that occurred
were within the operators control and that payment was not due and
that in the case of the two workers where the pieces were
'twisted', the foreman did not authorise payment for the products.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. This claim is for payment in respect of scrap produced
through no fault of the operators concerned. All three claims
were approved for payment by the foreman responsible as per
the established practice for paying for scrap and a senior
manager overruled this decision. Despite the established
custom and practice the Company has refused to pay the
moulders concerned. This total disregard for precedent and
custom and practice should not be condoned and the sums
involved should be paid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. In the case of the two workers who were not paid for
'twisted' pieces, when this decision was appealed a
comprehensive investigation was undertaken by the Company.
The pieces in question were twisted which arises when the
product is not jigged (clamped) correctly by the moulder while
cooking. The avoidance of this problem was completely and
entirely within the control of the moulder and in the past the
Company has not paid for twisted pieces.
2. The other worker produced a total of eighty unacceptable
quality pieces, the vast majority of which were 'blown'. It
was within the operative's control to avoid this situation by
reducing the rate of production and allowing additional time
for each piece in the mould. The worker appealed the decision
on the basis that it was only the next day that the product
appeared blown. The Company's investigation found that the
problem could have been avoided. It also transpired that the
supervisor had not brought the matter to the attention of the
worker. However, it is the operative who has ultimate
responsibility for the quality of the product s/he produces
and this was not sufficient grounds to alter the decision.
Claim (c) One week's suspension of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
9. The worker concerned (who is no longer employed by the
Company) was sent a letter on 26th January, 1989 informing him
that action would be taken if he further absented himself from
work without notifying the Company. The worker was subsequently
absent from work from 28th February to 3rd March, 1989 (inclusive)
without notifying the Company. A meeting took place on 6th March,
1989 following which the worker was suspended for one week from
Monday 6th March, 1989 to Friday 10th March, 1989 (this was
confirmed in writing on 7th March, 1989). The Union is claiming
that the normal procedures in such cases were not used and that
the worker should receive the week's pay. This is rejected by
management.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. Custom and practice provides for a verbal warning,
followed by written warning, suspension and ultimately
dismissals in cases of breach of discipline. In 1989 the
Company introduced a new disciplinary regime and this worker
was the first to be dealt with in line with the new regime.
The letter sent to this worker in January, 1989 (details
supplied to the Court) does not constitute a formal written
warning in line with custom and practice. The letter purely
states the Company's intent to discipline in a certain
situation and it did not convey to the worker the fact that
the Company was departing from custom and practice whereby he
could have expected to get a verbal warning. The Company's
second letter of 7th March, 1989 (details supplied to the
Court), clearly reflects the change as although a medical
certificate was submitted the Company proceeded to impose a
penalty of suspension for one week and a probation status for
six weeks. In all the circumstances, the penalty was too
severe and a written warning would have sufficed in this
case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The worker involved was warned in writing of the
consequences of absenting himself from work without notifying
the Company. In a letter of 26th January, 1989 the worker
was informed that he would be suspended and ultimately
dismissed if he continued to be absent without notification
(details supplied to the Court). However, the worker was
subsequently absent from 28th February, 1989 to 3rd March,
1989 without notifying the Company and was therefore
suspended for one week.
Claim (d) 39 Hour Week.
BACKGROUND:
12. The Union is seeking proposals from the Company on the
introduction of a 39 hour week. However, the Company has stated
that it wants to defer making proposals on this pending the
resolution of a number of outstanding issues. This position was
rejected by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
13. 1. The provisions of the Programme for National Recovery
(PNR) provide for the introduction of the thirty nine hour
week. Although the Union has repeatedly sought proposals
from the Company for the introduction of a thirty nine hour
week, the Company has refused to make any proposal. The
Company's refusal to make any proposal is contrary to the
spirit of both the PNR and the framework for negotiating the
reduction of the working week. The stage at which the
Company is at in the overall Programme is not a justifiable
reason for refusing to make proposals and the Company should
bring forward their proposals so that the Union can consider
it and respond accordingly.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1. Since early 1989 there have been an unmanageable number
of issues on the table between the Company and Union for
resolution. The Company had consistently told the Union that
the failure to resolve outstanding issues whilst at the same
time adding new issues was making any agenda unworkable. The
Company has given the Union an undertaking that it will table
comprehensive proposals on the implementation of the 39 hour
week as soon as outstanding issues are resolved. The
Company's position is perfectly reasonable. The Company is
willing and prepared to table comprehensive proposals on the
introduction of the 39 hour week, but this can only be done
when existing items are resolved. To do otherwise would
create an unmanageable and unworkable industrial relations
agenda, as has applied in the past.
Claim (e) Packers Bonus.
BACKGROUND:
15. Early in 1989 the Company did not have sufficient work coming
in and notice of lay-off was issued to a number of workers.
However, the parent company acquired another company in the United
Kingdom which resulted in additional business for this operation.
As a result of this there was a higher than normal range of models
to be assembled, while the Company rationalised the new models
into its own range. The Union has claimed that as a result of the
introduction of the greater range of models and the fact that the
assembly workers had to familiarise themselves with the new
models, bonus earnings dropped by an average of #6 to #7 per week
in the period 8th February, 1989 to 4th August, 1989 and
compensation should be paid. This was rejected by management on
the basis that bonus earnings are not guaranteed and must be
earned and the alternative to using new models was lay-off.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
16. 1. Through the buy out of two of its competitors in the U.K.
the Company has increased its share of the market situation
and therefore its potential profitability. As far as the
Union can determine the nature of the model is much more time
consuming and labour intensive, consequently the lay-off of
packers at that time had to be deferred. If the transfer of
the U.K. business to Ireland had not taken place when it did
and the Company proceeded to let the workers go as planned,
the remaining packers would have earned the extra #6/7 per
week. The Company could not have attained the production
levels over the period if they had not retained these workers
and this unique claim should be conceded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
17. 1. Bonus earnings are not guaranteed and must be earned, in
addition to basic pay a minimum bonus of #10.80 per week
irrespective of output levels is paid. The alternative to
the Company securing the new models was lay-off for the
workers in the department. An examination of the maximum
earnings available to an assembly worker shows that packers
bonus paid in the first three quarters of 1989 was 19.84%
higher than in 1988 (details supplied to the Court). The
Company introduces new models on an ongoing basis and under
no circumstances could a precedent be created whereby
compensation is paid for any loss associated with the
introduction of new models.
RECOMMENDATION:
18. The Court having heard the submissions of the parties both
written and oral considers that the disputes before the Court be
resolved as follows:-
(A) Scrap System.
It is clear that the identification of scrap can take some time
after initial manufacture. There is a doubtful system in
operation to determine whether or not it is an operator fault or
outside operator control.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties meet and devise
a system which will remove this lack of clarity.
(B) Loss of earnings of 3 named employees.
In the light of the points made above and as a gesture of goodwill
the Court recommends payment of the Union's claim.
(C) One week's suspension of a worker.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in
this case.