Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9082 Case Number: LCR12825 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning manning levels in relation to fitters and welders.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9082 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12825
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning manning levels in relation to fitters and
welders.
BACKGROUND:
2. In September, 1989 the Union served a claim on the Company for
the employment of one fitter and one welder in the plant
maintenance area. The Union claims that staffing levels are
inadequate and that these appointments are necessary in order to
restore previously existing manning levels which were reduced as a
result of two major rationalisation programmes which took place in
1983 and 1988 (details supplied to the Court). The Union
maintains that the additional workers if employed would cut down
on the need to employ outside contractors. The Company has
rejected the claim on the grounds that present manning levels in
all engineering grades are adequate. Management also states that
there will always be a requirement to contract out certain work as
the Company operates on a twenty four hour, seven day basis.
Local discussions failed to resolve the issue which was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 4th
January, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on the 29th
January, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 1st February, 1990. A Court
hearing was held on the 6th April, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In recent times the Company has improved its position as a
result of the rationalisation programme which took place with
the full co-operation of the workforce. There has been a
significant increase in machinery and plant which requires
maintenance in the various areas covered by plant maintenance
staff (details of the precise increased plant and machinery
supplied to the Court). Some of the new machinery is very
large and heavy and has resulted in a substantial increase in
maintenance work.
2. The Company has advised the Union that in order to
increase competitiveness further new plant and machinery is to
be installed in the next few years. This will add to the work
content of the existing labour force. The Company has on many
occasions used outside contractors to cope with the present
low manning level. In the case of the welding section it has
been necessary to have work contracted out because there has
been no welder available due to pressure of other work. The
same situation applies to the fitting section. All this work
could be done on Company premises as the equipment, materials
and expertise are available. Two more craftsmen need to be
employed as soon as possible.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In relation to the specific grades i.e. welders and plant
fitters the Company gives the following reasons to support its
statement that manning levels are adequate.
WELDERS
Through the 1970's the number of welders employed in the
Company was three (3) and in this period the number of
furnaces in operation was three (3). In 1977, following
prolonged negotiations, the number of welders was increased
from three (3) to four (4). The main reason put forward, by
the Union at the time, for this increase was the volume of
outstanding safety work that required to be done.
2. In 1982 the No. 5 Furnace ceased operations and the plant
was then down to two furnaces. In 1983 as part of a survival
package for the Company it was proposed the extra welder who
was brought in 1977 be dropped. The Union resisted this
change and the number of welders remained the same until 1988.
Further Rationalisation in 1988 brought about a reduction in
this grade. As a result of this rationalisation every
employee in the Company received an increase of 3.25% in
wages.
PLANT FITTERS
3. Over the past ten years or so, excluding the short period
in 1981 when the No. 5 factory was operating, the Company
maintained the same number of plant fitters i.e. eleven. This
number was maintained even though proposals were tabled for
reductions in all other areas. The Company over this period
saw the requirement as eight jobs plus three (3) spare people
to cover the various absences including time off for
"call-ins". The present situation has not changed, in any
substantial way, to warrant any increase in this grade.
4. Having regard to a situation whereby the basic manning is
eight jobs the actual average number of people in work through
the 52 weeks ended 9.1.90 was nine. This in effect means that
right through the past year, the Company has had, on average
one fitter over and above the designated eight jobs. If the
number of "call ins" in 1989 is examined as against say 1987,
the year before the most recent rationalisation it should be
noted that these remain about the same i.e. six (6) "call ins"
on average per week. The Company accepts that there have
been, and will be in the future, times when a lot more people
are needed than are employed, but these are usually periods
when some major work is in progress and contractors are
required. In all of these instances the Company's prime
objective is to minimise down-time in order to retain its
business because one of the main reasons the Company retains
business is through good service.
5. While admitting that it has had additions to its
mechanical plant, the Company believes that by minimising the
causes of failure, automatically stopping plant when it starts
to give trouble, adding plant which is more reliable and
overhauling plant during brief holiday periods, there is no
significant increase in maintenance now over the past ten (10)
years.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
7th May, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.