Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/90/191 Case Number: LCR12928 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CARTON BROTHERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims by the Union concerning:- (A) Compensation for staggered meal breaks (Mill). (B) Payment for loss of wages on three days during which the Company was not operating. (C) The filling of a vacant post in the Company's Maintenance Department, on a contract basis.
Recommendation:
12. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Union accept the Company's offer as set out in
their letter of the 8th March, 1990 with regard to staggered meal
breaks and bonus.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims in
relation to loss of earnings and employment of maintenance
contractor.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90191 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12928
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CARTON BROTHERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union concerning:-
(A) Compensation for staggered meal breaks (Mill).
(B) Payment for loss of wages on three days during which the
Company was not operating.
(C) The filling of a vacant post in the Company's
Maintenance Department, on a contract basis.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the processing of poultry products
and related activities. It employs 290 workers directly, in a
number of locations throughout the country. Other workers are
employed indirectly in the breeding, growing and distribution of
poultry. The Company was hit by the salmonella scare in
1988/1989. It has now made a substantial capital investment in
its operations in order to improve its product quality and its
efficiency. The salmonella scare and the updated equipment gave
rise to the three issues in dispute. They were referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on 7th February, 1990.
Conciliation conferences on 1st March, 1990 and 13th March, 1990
failed to resolve any of the disputes. The Union requested a full
Labour Court hearing, to which the Company agreed. The Court
investigated the three disputes in Cavan on 29th May, 1990.
(A) Compensation for Staggered Meal Breaks (Mill)
BACKGROUND:
3. 1. The Company invested in machinery for its mill in the late
1980's. A fully computerised plant was set up in January,
1989. It is designed to run uninterrupted for each days
production. Workers, by request, operate staggered meal
breaks so as to allow for uninterrupted production at the
newly automated mill. Following a local level meeting held on
5th May, 1990 the Company by letter of 8th March, 1990 put
forward proposals for a revised bonus scheme, etc. (See
Appendix A). The Union claimed that the adjustment to the
bonus was not sufficient and that the increased bonus should
be paid with effect from the date of operation of staggered
meal breaks. The Union are claiming:
(A) #85 per week bonus inclusive of flexible cover.
(B) Retrospection of #2,000 in lieu of past losses through
staggered meal breaks.
(C) Payment of a cuber allowance of #9.20 for one man per
week.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The staggered meal breaks commenced in June, 1988 when the
automated mill was being commissioned. They have been
staggered since then but the increased bonus is only payable
from mid March 1990. The increase is not sufficient,
primarily because it includes a requirement to continue the
staggered breaks on a #3 weekly increase. The Union are
seeking #2,000 per worker in retrospective compensation.
2. The Company now has a continuous working day of 9 hours
duration - 1 1/4 hours longer than before June 1988. This
has increased productivity and reduced overtime. While bonus
earnings increased because of the arrangement there is a loss
against overtime.
3. The bonus was calculated until March, 1990 at #1.10 per
ton in excess of 90 tons per day, divided by seven, even
though there are only six workers in receipt of bonus (4 mill
workers and 2 laboratory workers). The loss is estimated on
the basis of bonus earned on the formula against the value of
1 1/4 hours overtime per day. Average production equates to
27 tons per hour or #4.24 earned bonus. Therefore 1 1/4 hours
bonus equals #5.30 per worker. Taking the basic hourly rate
as it applied up to 31st March, 1990 as #3.25, the loss of 1
1/4 hours overtime per day would be equivalent to #6.30 or a
difference of #1 per day or #500 over two years.
4. Consideration when assessing the loss, was also given to
the interference with the social aspect of the breaks i.e.
only two workers having their breaks together. The
restriction reduces the enjoyment of the usual card game at
lunch time, and other aspects of social interchanges which are
normal among a group of workers.
4. 5. The new scheme is a fixed bonus of #60 per week. Total
interchangeability amongst the workers in the mill is expected
by the Company. Workers are also expected to maintain a high
standard of hygiene and to assist the Company in obtaining a
particular quality mark.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company rejected the Union's claim on the basis that
the workers in the mill would actually earn less if they
worked overtime in preference to the existing arrangement and
secondly, the two workers in the laboratory would lose out
significantly as bonus is not earned on overtime (comparable
earnings supplied to the Court). It proposed a revised bonus
scheme yielding a payment of #60 per week, made up of bonus
and cubing allowance, with an additional #3 per week payment
for co-operation with flexible mealbreaks, 'until such time as
the necessary equipment was installed to eliminate flexible
mealbreaks. A once off payment of #75 per worker, was also
offered as a gesture of goodwill. The bonus proposals put
forward, yielding an average increase of #6 per person are
more than generous. Basic pay in the mill is #137 and there
is an opportunity to enhance earnings substantially through
overtime.
2. Staggered meal breaks are very common in industry and do
not usually attract a premia. Flexible breaks have been
ongoing in the mill for almost two years and are a necessary
part of the operation as the plant must be run uninterrupted
for a days production. If the plant is stopped valuable
information on the amounts of different products used is lost.
3. Workers are not losing out because of the system operated.
The opposite is true and a claim for loss of earnings is not
sustainable.
(B) Payment for loss of wages on three days during which the
Company was not operating.
BACKGROUND:
6. 1. During 1989, workers lost 23 days work by way of a four
day week, over a period January to June, because of the
salmonella scare in the U.K. A further day was lost in July
1989. Workers were of the opinion that this particular day
was lost because of new plant installation and following
negotiations with management, later in 1989, the Company
agreed to pay workers for that day. The Company again
implemented a four day week, on three occasions between
December, 1989 and February 1990, because of a high mortality
rate in one of its supplier's units which was hit by disease.
Workers were advised in advance of lay-offs and were given the
option of taking one of their flexible days leave. The
Company decided to organise a day trip to Dublin on one of the
lay-off days, so that workers could visit main suppliers.
Workers who availed of the trip to Dublin were paid for the
day as though they were working. Those who did not visit
Dublin lost one day's pay. The Union claimed that as the
closures on the three days between December 1989 and February
1990 were related more to maintenance requirements than to
disease, the workers who lost three and two days pay should be
reimbursed for their losses.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Workers had to use their annual leave on a one day per
week basis so as not to suffer a big financial loss due to
lay-off. Yet the Company was prepared to spend more money on
a trip to Dublin, than was required to meet the cost of the
two days wages for all concerned.
2. It is clear that workers have been more severely affected
and inconvenienced than the Company. Losses caused by the
disease difficulties have been more than overtaken. Losses
sustained by the workers will never be recovered. Their
family holiday plans were totally interfered with in 1989.
3. It is possible that the Company is insured against disease
problems and that it may have suffered no loss in the first
instance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company only considered the option of lay-offs as a
last resort and fully appreciate the co-operation of its
workers. However the industry by its nature is subject to
fluctuation due to disease etc, which cannot be foreseen or
controlled and which directly effects the supply of product to
the Company. A Company of its size cannot afford to have its
entire staff on the premises with nothing to do or pay such
staff while nothing is being produced. When the plant runs
out of product for whatever reason, workers are allowed to go
home early, but get paid for a full day. The Company is not
insured for disease related problems.
2. The Company have done more than their share in providing
workers who were on lay-off for these occasions with earning
potential, by arranging a trip to Dublin at a substantial cost
to the Company. The Union cannot possibly expect to get
payment for those who are already paid or who were offered the
opportunity of securing payment.
(C) The filling of a vacant post in the Company's Maintenance
Department on a contract basis.
BACKGROUND:
9. 1. This dispute arose following the filling of a vacant post
in the Maintenance Department. The Company's Maintenance
Department has been staffed mainly by production operatives
who have been trained "on the job" but who have no formal
maintenance qualifications. One time served electrician is
employed on a sub-contract basis. In September 1989, a
maintenance fitter left the Company and was replaced on a
contract basis by a time served craftsman. The Union claim
that this arrangement was made without any consultation or
agreement with them, while Management state that the Union
recommended that the worker be taken on, on a contract basis,
in order to ensure a one union structure in the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Company state that they intend replacing any other
craft workers who leave their employment with contractors,
regardless of objections. The new contractor is working
alongside maintenance fitters and is indistinguishable from
them in any respect except the method in which he is paid.
2. The Company requirements of upgrading the level of skills
in this department can be easily achieved with a combination
of improved training for existing workers and the induction
and training of apprentices. The appointment of contractors
is an easy option and not necessarily the best.
3. There is no-one better suited to tend to complex
equipment than a person specifically trained in the skills
required to keep it operational on a daily basis in the
actual work environment. In any event, with changes in
technology occurring so fast, external contractors face the
same ongoing problem of needing to constantly update skills.
Existing craft workers have received very limited forms of
training on new equipment, in some cases only 3-4 days.
4. The Company is in breach of the Closed Shop Agreement
requiring all production and craft workers to become and
remain members of SIPTU. The particular contractor refuses
to join the Union and the Company has allowed him to do so.
He is not an "employee" in the true sense of the word but he
is working in a closed shop nonetheless.
5. The claim is to have the particular contractor
"converted" into an hourly-paid worker on an equal footing
with other workers or, alternatively, to have him replaced
with an hourly-paid worker. Furthermore, it is essential
that all vacancies which arise in the department in the
future will be filled by either the recruitment of
apprentices or craftsmen in a direct employee status.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. In the past it was possible to operate on the basis of
"on the job" trained maintenance fitters as the machinery in
use was relatively basic. However in the last few years the
Company has invested heavily in larger more sophisticated
machinery in an effort to keep pace with market demands, and
to remain competitive. Much of this machinery is
computerised and its proper maintenance demands a very high
degree of skill. It is paramount that if the Company is to
maintain its reputation for quality (i.e. the Irish Quality
Mark and ISO 9000), all aspects of the operation must be of
the highest standard.
2. In recent years the Company has frequently been forced to
bring in maintenance people from abroad in order do repairs
on machinery which could not be done by the maintenance
department because of the level of skill involved. Such a
situation leads to long delays and unnecessary downtime,
which in turn affects the bonus earnings of all workers.
3. The Company has given an assurance to existing
maintenance workers that their positions are not in jeopardy.
The Company believes that it's decision to engage contractors
is perfectly reasonable, given the highly mechanised nature
of the operation at present. It is in the overall interest
of all workers in the Company that machines are maintained to
the highest possible standards, and that the level of
down-time be kept to a minimum.
RECOMMENDATION:
12. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Union accept the Company's offer as set out in
their letter of the 8th March, 1990 with regard to staggered meal
breaks and bonus.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims in
relation to loss of earnings and employment of maintenance
contractor.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___25th___June,____1990. ___________________
A. McG. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.
APPENDIX A
LETTER OF 8TH MARCH, 1990
FROM COMPANY TO UNION
Further to our meeting in the Feed Mill on 5th March, 1990, and
subject to the proposed Bonus Scheme being accepted by the staff,
we are prepared to offer #60.00 bonus per week. This bonus will
be implemented on 1st April, 1990 and adjusted at the same
percentage rate as the basic rate of pay. We are also prepared to
offer #3.00 per week to the four production staff as inconvenience
money for flexible meal breaks until such time as the necessary
equipment is installed to eliminate flexible meal breaks.
This would take into consideration any outstanding claims. In
addition we are prepared to make a once off payment of #75.00 to
the production staff, as proposed by Jimmy Courtney at a previous
meeting.
We feel that this is a fair offer and look forward to its
acceptance by all.
We also wish to confirm that as and from 1st April, 1990, a thirty
nine hour week will operate which will increase the overtime rate
by two and a half percent.