Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91433 Case Number: LCR13432 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WATERFORD FOODS PLC - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning rationalisation of the bagging line at the Company's Plant in Dungarvan.
Recommendation:
8. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
takes the view that the issue of the manning of the bagging line
is best dealt with by the parties arranging an objective
assessment of the work involved and proceeding to negotiate
directly in the light of the information thus available to them.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91433 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13432
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: WATERFORD FOODS PLC
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning rationalisation of the bagging line at the
Company's Plant in Dungarvan.
BACKGROUND:
2. Waterford Food Plc is an international food company with
operations in Ireland, the U.K. and the U.S.A.
3. The Company employs 235 people at its Dungarvan plant which
processes skim-milk powder, butter and some fat filled powders.
Because of the downturn in the dairy industry the Company has
undergone a number of rationalisation programmes.
4. The "Niro 4" plant processes skim-milk powder and there is a
bagging unit in that plant. The Unit is staffed by seven workers
on a two-shift rota. The Company proposed to reduce the manning
level to five on the following basis:-
"(a) A lead in payment of £700 gross per man.
(b) "Grub money" (currently £204.26) will be paid for
having meals on the plant.
(c) The grading committee would examine the extra
responsibilities associated with operating with
lower manning levels."
The proposals were rejected following a ballot of the workers
concerned.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 11th June, 1991. As no
agreement was reached the issue was considered by the Commission
and with the consent of the parties the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under
Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Court hearing was held in Waterford on 11th September, 1991
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The initial proposal was for a reduction in the manning
level from eight to seven, to facilitate a worker who wished
to avail of the Company's voluntary severence scheme. An
agreement had been reached with his colleagues to cover all
eventualities over a two-shift operation. A new manning level
of seven has come into operation since 1st August, 1991.
2. Management have quoted manning levels in various other
food industry sites but has not facilitated the Union's desire
to examine the manning at those sites.
3. In the last decade, the workforce has agreed to major
rationalisation and reductions in manning levels at the
Company's sites. The workers have already agreed to a
reduction in the manning level from eight to seven. Any
further reduction would interfere with the efficiency of the
Unit because of the range of duties which have to be carried
out (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Manning levels in similar operations in the industry are
two per shift. In Waterford it is three per shift and one
relief.
2. Under the present trading conditions there is a need for
the rationalisation of activities, the reduction of costs and
the achievement of maximum efficiency in order to maintain
successful ongoing operations at Dungarvan.
3. The Company's proposals will not result in redundancies
or loss of pay as the workers will be redeployed.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
takes the view that the issue of the manning of the bagging line
is best dealt with by the parties arranging an objective
assessment of the work involved and proceeding to negotiate
directly in the light of the information thus available to them.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
--------------------
7th October, 1991
M.D./U.S. Deputy Chairman