Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90124 Case Number: LCR13011 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WEXFORD CREAMERY - and - WEXFORD CREAMERY LIMITED;THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS;NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union for a productivity payment for craftsmen.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to the reasons for the introduction of new plant
and changes in store procedures does not consider the Union's
claim to be well founded. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90124 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13011
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WEXFORD CREAMERY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a productivity payment for craftsmen.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in cheese production and employs 120
workers. Until 1988 whey, which is a by product of cheese
production, was processed by another company on the same site.
When the other company ceased whey processing in 1988 the Company
had to purchase, install, and operate an evaporator of its own.
The Company has also made other on-going changes over the years in
order to replace old machinery and improve efficiency. Changes
were also made by the Company in the operation of the stores when
a storeman retired and was not replaced. The Company employs 4
fitters and 3 electricians to maintain the plant. In May, 1989
the Union initiated a claim for compensation on the basis of
changes in working conditions and increased work load due to the
introduction and installation of the more modern and sophisticated
plant. The Company rejected the claim and as no agreement was
reached at local level the matter was referred on 28th July, 1989
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 19th October, 1989 at which no agreement
was reached. The matter was referred on 19th February, 1990 to a
full hearing of the Labour Court which took place in Wexford on
28th August, 1990 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The installation of a new whey evaporator has created
increased workload and changes in working conditions for the
craftsmen. Maintenance work has to be carried out in
excessive temperatures and at different levels above the
ground. These difficult conditions require increased care and
attention which will continue to increase in the future.
There is further danger caused by acid tanks present in the
work area.
2. The Union's claim is further justified by the expectation
of the Company that craftsmen will carry out the functions of
a storeman who retired from the Company and has not been
replaced. The craftsmen are expected to foresee their
requirements to carry out their maintenance work in advance
and are expected to list and enter all items which they
acquire from the stores. The extra duties carried out by the
craftsmen has created savings for the Company due to the non
replacement of the storeman.
3. The new plant cost in the region of three million pounds
and has to be maintained under very difficult conditions. The
Union's claim for a once off payment of #4,000 for the
co-operation of each of the craftsmen concerned is not
excessive in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In order to remain competitive and efficient the Company
must carry out regular upgrading of plant. In 1988 it was
necessary for the Company to install an evaporator in order to
stay in business. In the present climate of rationalisation
in the dairy industry the Company must make necessary changes
to protect the business without making upward adjustments in
pay which it cannot justify on any real grounds.
2. The craftsmen are paid to carry out maintenance, as
directed, on plant which forms part of the Company's
operations, including the evaporator. The upgrading of the
plant has not made any substantial change in workload or work
practices which could justify the Union's claim.
3. The minor changes in the operation of the store involving
the recording by craftsmen of items which they take is a
feature of every business and employment and does not justify
the Union's claim.
4. The craftsmen enjoy favourable terms and conditions of
employment. Any concession of the Union's claim would have
repercussive effects. A recent Labour Court recommendation
(No. 12977) did not recommend concession of a similar claim
made against the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to the reasons for the introduction of new plant
and changes in store procedures does not consider the Union's
claim to be well founded. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
5th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.