Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91583 Case Number: LCR13511 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LAPPLE IRELAND LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the manning of a new computer numeric control machine.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
appreciates both the concern of the Company to maintain its
competitiveness and the misgivings of the Union regarding the
position of its skilled members. It seems to the Court that both
sides have considered the introduction of the new machine as a
once-off issue whereas in effect the Company proposals may have
long term implications for the make-up and relationships of the
overall workforce. For this reason, the Court believes that
negotiations are essential between the parties to clear the air as
to how the workforce will develop into the future and how the
legitimate interests of all parties can be reasonably protected.
The Court recommends that these negotiations be commenced as early
as possible.
Regarding the issue of the new machine, the Court is of the view
that its manning is subject to Article II of the Company/Union
Agreement under which the Union accepted that the Company had the
right to assign the work to specific employees or specific
machines. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union now
accepts the Company proposals regarding the manning of the machine
and that emergent concerns be dealt with in the negotiations
recommended above.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91583 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13511
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: LAPPLE IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the manning of a new computer numeric
control machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company intends to introduce a computer numeric
control (CNC) milling machine. This is the first CNC milling
machine to be installed by the Company. A dispute has arisen
as to who will operate it. The Union maintains that CNC
machines should be operated by skilled time served craftsmen.
The Company claims that the semi-skilled workforce which has
long experience with the Company (details supplied), has the
necessary training and skills to operate the machine involved.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on 12th June, 1991. Conciliation conference were
held on 21st August and 29th October, 1991. No resolution was
possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
6th November, 1991. A Labour Court investigation into the
dispute took place on 18th November, 1991.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The milling machines in the Company are operated by
Union members and the operation of the CNC machine is work
proper to time served craftsmen as it is a very highly skilled
operation. A number of Union members have been trained in the
operation of CNC machines and for this they receive 15% above
the craftsman's rate of pay. If semi-skilled workers were
allowed to operate the CNC machine they would receive more pay
than a craftsman who is not operating the machines. A similar
machine purchased by the Company in 1988 is operated by
craftsmen. This was insisted upon by the Company at that time
despite the objections of the semi-skilled workers.
2. If workers other than craftsmen operate the CNC machine,
it will damage and undermine the whole question of
apprenticeships system within the Company. The work involved
is not repetitive and involves 4 months' training. The work
is, therefore appropriate work to a trained craftsman.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a similar machine already in operation at the
Company. It was decided that it would be operated by a
trained craftsman because it was new technology and a trained
person was required to operate the machine to its maximum
value. In addition it was not taking work from any other
machine. The introduction of the new CNC machine will take
work from existing manual machines. This would lead to
redundancies in the semi-skilled area. Although the workers
in this area are classified as semi-skilled, they have been
operating manual machines since 1974 and are actually highly
skilled. The Company has an obligation to allow all workers
share in new technology.
2. Article II of the Company/Union Agreement states that
management has the sole right to decide the machine and tool
equipment, the product to be manufactured, the method of
manufacture and the assignment of work to specific employees
or specific machines. The Company has invested £1.3 million
in new technology since 1988. The Unions must also be
prepared to invest in flexibility to ensure that the future of
the Company is safeguarded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
appreciates both the concern of the Company to maintain its
competitiveness and the misgivings of the Union regarding the
position of its skilled members. It seems to the Court that both
sides have considered the introduction of the new machine as a
once-off issue whereas in effect the Company proposals may have
long term implications for the make-up and relationships of the
overall workforce. For this reason, the Court believes that
negotiations are essential between the parties to clear the air as
to how the workforce will develop into the future and how the
legitimate interests of all parties can be reasonably protected.
The Court recommends that these negotiations be commenced as early
as possible.
Regarding the issue of the new machine, the Court is of the view
that its manning is subject to Article II of the Company/Union
Agreement under which the Union accepted that the Company had the
right to assign the work to specific employees or specific
machines. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union now
accepts the Company proposals regarding the manning of the machine
and that emergent concerns be dealt with in the negotiations
recommended above.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
18th December, 1991 ---------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman