Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91474 Case Number: LCR13462 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: THE IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims concerning:- (a) Introduction of new technology. (b) Manning levels (shift workers). (c) Manning levels (process feeders).
Recommendation:
10. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds as follows:
1. New Technology and Process Feeders (Claims a and c).
The work in both cases should be undertaken as proposed by
management for a period of 4 weeks. The issues should be the
subject of an investigation by representatives of the Company
and the Union.
The findings of the investigation should be the subject of
discussions between the parties with a view to reaching
agreement.
The parties should seek to have the investigation completed
within a period of two weeks.
In the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement
the findings of the investigation should be referred to the
Court for a recommendation within the four week period.
2. Shift Operator (Claim b)
The Court having examined the views expressed by the parties
finds no grounds for concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91474 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13462
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: THE IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims concerning:-
(a) Introduction of new technology.
(b) Manning levels (shift workers).
(c) Manning levels (process feeders).
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 500 people in the production of glass
containers from two furnaces. Each furnace services four
bottle making machines. There are two different sizes of
machines, i.e. six section mechanical and eight section
electronic machines. The machines run for 24 hour per day,
seven days a week. In 1990, the Company introduced new
technology in response to customer demand for carbon free
bottles. The "hot end" production workers refused to operate
the new system without compensation. Local level discussion
over a period of 18 months failed to resolve the issues and
the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
5th July, 1991. Conciliation conferences were held on 29th
August, 1991 and 4th September, 1991 and as no agreement could
be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court hearing took
place on 11th September, 1991.
Claim (A)
Introduction of New Technology
Background
In April, 1990 the Company informed the Union that they would
begin operating a new system known as the Hot End Ware Reject
System (HEWRS). The HEWRS which has the ability to reject bottles
with swab residue, would also be fitted to the older mechanical
machines. The moulds used in making bottles are swabbed at
regular intervals and this results in deposits of graphite being
left on the first few bottles produced following swabbing. The
staff claimed compensation for operating the system. This claim
for compensation was rejected by the Company and the staff refused
to operate the system. In June/July, 1990, the staff agreed to
operate the system for a trial period of one month. The trial
period was successful but the staff would not continue to operate
the system without compensation being paid. They claimed 5% of
basic and related rates of pay. The Company refused to pay
compensation for the introduction of the new technology. At the
conciliation conference held on 29th August, 1991 both sides
agreed to consider proposals to operate the system for a trial
period to allow Industrial Engineers to study the implications of
operating the system. These proposals were rejected by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In defining the operators' duties in respect of the new
equipment, the Company says that the operators are responsible
for ensuring that HEWRS duties are carried out. The Company
contends that there is no increase in the duties and
responsibilities of the operator.
2. The Union has co-operated with ongoing changes which have
resulted in an increase of up to 33% in production. The
workers' earnings have improved only marginally for this
co-operation.
3. The workers will be continuously subjected to increased
exposure to the extremely high temperatures which are required
in the manufacture of glass.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company produce glass containers for the food and
beverage industry. In recent years the industry worldwide has
come under pressure to remove any possible causes of
contamination which could affect the product or the customer.
2. Complaints from customers in respect of contaminated
bottles have risen by more than 300% since 1989. These
complaints can be eliminated by the operation of the HEWRS.
Complaints have placed the Company in real danger of losing
its largest customer. This loss could have disastrous
consequences for the Company.
3. The HEWRS rejects about 3% of product. The industry must
suffer this increase in costs to avoid the possibility of
sending graphite contaminated bottles to customers.
4. The responsibilities of the operators will not change with
the introduction of the HEWRS. It is simply switched on at
the end of a swab cycle.
Claim (B)
Manning levels for shift workers
Background
The current agreement on manning levels allows for 15 operations
per shift. There is self cover for various absence down to 13.
The Union claim that these manning levels agreed in 1988, are no
longer workable and want manning levels increased to 16, self
covering down to 14. The Company maintains that manning levels
are consistant with the amount of work required and are not
prepared to increase the agreed number.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In 15 of 21 shifts the operating grade is reduced to 14
men because of a previous agreement allowing one operator off
per shift. This number is further reduced to allow for the 39
hour week and service leave. This results in minimum manning
levels being constantly reached.
2. When minimum manning levels are reached, the 13th man is
unable to provide cover of 4½ hours for meal breaks because if
he were to provide it, it would take him outside the
prescribed times for meal breaks. It is necessary to provide
cover from additional spare workers. This example of meal
cover shows that the current agreement is no longer workable.
3. Current manning levels were agreed when the Company had
only one 8 section machine.
4. Shift foremen have stopped staff taking time off in order
to operate a system of 15 men, reducing to 14.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The 13th man provides cover for meal breaks for 4½ hours.
As this takes him outside of the prescribed times for meal
breaks, additional assistance will have to come from one of
the other back-up crews. In circumstances where the minimum
staffing levels apply it will be necessary to provide cover by
a spare man, for a short period but the Company cannot concede
one additional job to provide 30 minutes cover.
Claim (C)
Manning levels process feeders
Background
There are 6 process feeders employed by the Company. They are
involved in the changeover of operations when a different product
is being introduced into the line. The Union want this number
increased to 7. They claim that the workload has increased
because of the introduction of bigger and more complicated
machines. The Company reject this claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Since the current manning levels were agreed there has
been a significant increase in productivity due to the
introduction of bigger and faster machines.
2. The Company are enjoying increased profitability due to
increased production.
3. The introduction of 8 section machines has increased the
number of change overs. Change overs are not just a matter of
changing over a machine. Workers spend on average of 7 to 10
hours per day working in intense heat and dirt following up
the change overs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Company believe that the labour saving element of the
new technology coupled with quick change accessories, more
than compensates for the introduction of the bigger machine.
2. In recent years the Company, where possible, keep
different job runs in family groups i.e. small bottles of
similar size and capacity following one after the other. This
has the advantage of reducing the manual labour associated
with job changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds as follows:
1. New Technology and Process Feeders (Claims a and c).
The work in both cases should be undertaken as proposed by
management for a period of 4 weeks. The issues should be the
subject of an investigation by representatives of the Company
and the Union.
The findings of the investigation should be the subject of
discussions between the parties with a view to reaching
agreement.
The parties should seek to have the investigation completed
within a period of two weeks.
In the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement
the findings of the investigation should be referred to the
Court for a recommendation within the four week period.
2. Shift Operator (Claim b)
The Court having examined the views expressed by the parties
finds no grounds for concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
_______________________
Tom McGrath
1st November, 1991. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.