Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90567 Case Number: LCR13099 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WYETH (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the number of workers to be compensated as a result of the introduction of new equipment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and inspected the plant to ascertain the impact of the
agglomerators on the jobs in question. In the light of this it
has come to the following conclusions -
(a) That in the case of the engineering helpers the operation
of the added plant does not warrant yet a further
payment. The Court therefore in this case does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
(b) That the impact of the change in packaging is marginal in
the case of the depalletisers. In their case the Court
recommends that they be paid a once-off sum of #150.
(c) That no extra payment is warranted in the case of the
packmaster operators the 2 line service operators or the
2 transfer operators or the relief batch make-up
operators and in these cases the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90567 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13099
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WYETH (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the number of workers to be compensated as
a result of the introduction of new equipment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of powdered infant
food for the export market at Askeaton, Co. Limerick. As a result
of increasing pressure in the market place, including competition
from other manufacturers who supply infant nutritionals in
instantised form, the Company installed a production unit known as
a Rewet Agglomeration Drier to produce instantised powder. The
first unit was installed in 1988 and the second in 1989.
Agreement was reached with the Union on compensation for
additional work associated with the first agglomerator and
seventeen workers were paid once-off lump sum payments of #500.
In October, 1989 the Union claimed compensation on behalf of
workers associated with the introduction of the second
agglomerator. In a letter to the Union dated 1st November, 1989
(Appendix A) the Company offered lump sum compensation to forty
workers including engineering helpers, process operators and
canning line workers. The Union rejected the Company's offer on
the grounds that fifty nine workers were entitled to benefit by
way of additional compensation. The issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court in August, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on the 20th September, 1990 but
no agreement was reached. However at the conference the Union
withdrew its claim in respect of six drier operators. The Union's
claims are on behalf of thirteen operators. Three of these
operators, i.e. the engineering operators, are also claiming #500
compensation in respect of the first agglomerator. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th September, 1990. A
Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 2nd October, 1990. On
the 25th October, 1990 the Court visited the plant and inspected
the work of the claimants.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The basis of the claims on behalf of the various
categories of workers is as follows:
3 Engineering helpers are claiming #500 each for
additional duties associated with the first Agglomerator.
The Company has offered #500 each for both agglomerators.
2 Depalletizers are claiming compensation for additional
duties. The change from 1lb to 1 kilo cans means that
there is an increase of three times the volume of pallets
to be handled.
2 packmaster operators who work on the line have to handle
the increased volume of cartons which is estimated at
between 1500 and 1700 cartons per shift.
2 line service operators, 2 transfer operators, 2 relief
batch make-up operators - because of all the additional
movements involved these operators are also claiming
compensation.
2. Following a protracted official dispute in 1988, the
Company paid compensation to all employees for the
introduction of the first agglomerator, and agreed that the
Union had the right to submit claims for compensation
following the introduction of the second agglomerator. In
addition, the Company agreed that should any other Union in
the employment secure increases above those offered to this
Union it had the right to counter claim. The Company has in
the meantime conceded to craftsmen an increase of #150 p.a. in
their tool allowance bringing it from #160 to #310 p.a. This
figure of #310 will be indexed linked. The Company has stated
that this adjustment was given to secure craftsmens'
co-operation on the introduction of the agglomerators.
3. The Company's deal with the craftsmen has been noted by
the workers concerned who feel that they have been short
changed in the transaction. The Union contends that the
Company has an obligation to meet the claims of the thirteen
workers which are outlined above.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company in an attempt to recognise additional workload
and responsibilities associated with the first agglomerator
made lump sum payments to seventeen workers and the principles
and precedent of this matter were established in an agreement
reached in 1988. The Company has consistently rejected
attempts by the Union to extend the numbers to benefit
contrary to the principle agreed in 1988. The Company in its
offer of 1st November, 1989 included compensation to a further
seven workers.
2. Since November 1st, 1989 the Union has attempted to
enlarge the numbers to benefit and there have been protracted
negotiations on the issue. The Union's position is that any
involvement with agglomerated product, however minor, warrants
compensation. Continued investment by the Company in
upgrading plant and equipment will be seriously discouraged if
the Company is continuously presented with claims from workers
in such circumstances.
3. While Management will accept that workers can have, at
times, a minor increase in duties arising indirectly from new
equipment and/or products, such activities are considered by
the Company to be normal on-going co-operation and
flexibility. In addition, it must be noted that the workers
concerned enjoy very competitive rates of pay.
4. Concession of the Union's claim would have a knock-on
effect for other Union members, including the first group of
operators who were offered and accepted #500 compensation in
1988. In addition to the financial implications, a major
precedent would be created whereby all unionised workers would
receive compensation when there is an increase in workload for
a specific number of employees and this is not a reasonable
premise on which to base pay determination.
5. Agglomerated powder was introduced to maintain position in
the market place, failure to do so would have consequences for
employment levels. The Company, in an attempt to be
reasonable offered compensation to those workers having
increased workload and responsibility.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and inspected the plant to ascertain the impact of the
agglomerators on the jobs in question. In the light of this it
has come to the following conclusions -
(a) That in the case of the engineering helpers the operation
of the added plant does not warrant yet a further
payment. The Court therefore in this case does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
(b) That the impact of the change in packaging is marginal in
the case of the depalletisers. In their case the Court
recommends that they be paid a once-off sum of #150.
(c) That no extra payment is warranted in the case of the
packmaster operators the 2 line service operators or the
2 transfer operators or the relief batch make-up
operators and in these cases the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________________
30th November, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
APPENDIX A
Our Ref: MJR/JH 1st November, 1989
Mr. Tony Walsh
Branch Secretary
Irish Transport and General Workers Union
91, O'Connell Street,
Limerick.
Re: Wyeth (Ireland) Limited
Dear Mr Walsh
I refer to your Union's claims for compensation associated with
the second Agglomerator at Wyeth (Ireland) Limited and to the
recent series of meetings on this subject. At the meeting held on
Thursday October 26th 1989, the Company made its final offer and I
am now writing to confirm that offer.
It was agreed at those meetings that any agreement reached would
be governed by the following principles:-
(1) the current agreement is an extension of the existing
agreement which provided for lump-sum compensation
associated with the Agglomerator,
(2) all claims raised during negotiations are embodied in
the terms of the agreement and there will be no further
cost increasing claims for the duration of the
agreement,
(3) there will be continued co-operation and flexibility
with on-going change to meet the Company's present and
future needs,
(4) the number of people to benefit would be specific and
are listed below.
In recognition of additional workload and responsibilities
associated with the Agglomerator the following once-off payments
are offered:
PROCESS 1.
Drier Operators (6) Process Operators (8)
Evaporator Operator (1) Utility Operator (1)
Drier Cleaners / Area Cleaners / Reworkmen (10)
A total of #13,000 available for distribution among the 26 people.
CANNING LINE 2:
Filler Operators (3) #500 each
Utility Operators (2) #300 each
Line Service (2) #300 each
CANNING LINE 3:
Palletizers (2) #500 each
Reliefmen (2) #300 each
ENGINEERING:
Mechanical Helpers (2) #500 each
Electrical Helper (1) #500 each
This offer as outlined above is in full and final settlement of
all claims raised.
I look forward to receiving confirmation of acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Michael J. Rooney
Regional Director
_____________________________
c.c. Mr. Joe Ryan, Wyeth (Ireland) Limited.