Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91475 Case Number: LCR13449 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Manning levels in "cold end".
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties, and finds that the manning of the light stations is
outside the terms of the 1988 agreement and accordingly the Court
concedes the claim of the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91475 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13449
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED
(I.G.B.)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Manning levels in "cold end".
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is in dispute with I.G.B. over manning levels at the
cold end production line. The current manning levels, under the
terms of the 1988 manning agreement, allow for twenty sorters per
shift, self-covering down to sixteen. Sixteen sorters do specific
jobs with the four spares covering in various situations.
Problems first arose in May, 1991 over the manning of "light
stations". Two workers cover the light station position, an area
where defective produce is identified. The Union claim that under
the terms of the 1988 agreement, the manning of light stations
should come from outside the agreed number of twenty. The Company
rejected this interpretation. Local level discussion failed to
resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission on 23rd August, 1991. A conciliation
conference was held on the 29th August, 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
26th September, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The subject of manning levels is a highly contentious one
and owes its origins to two major rationalisation agreements
which resulted in a decrease in staff of approximately 50%.
2. The Company have attempted to manipulate a clause in the
1988 agreement which was intended to refer to residual
employment i.e. sweeping, cleaning etc. to justify the
deployment of back-up spares to light stations.
3. Two shift superintendents operate the agreement in a
manner which agrees with the Union's view.
4. The Union requested, on a number of occasions, that the
manning of light stations be clearly defined. This was
rejected by the Company.
5. Customer requirements dictate that light stations operate
75% of the time. This operation is crucial to the quality
control function.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accepts that a situation has arisen on two
shifts where there has been an incorrect interpretation of the
cold end manning agreement relative to the use of spares.
However, because a mistake is made and in this case more than
once, does not mean that the mistake should be perpetuated.
2. The Union is suggesting that where there is a requirement
for two people to cover light stations, the designated spares
cannot be used for this work. The Union agrees that the same
people can be moved from the production lines to manually
check the production which should be checked by the light
station method. This is a labour-intensive and time-consuming
method of achieving the same result.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties, and finds that the manning of the light stations is
outside the terms of the 1988 agreement and accordingly the Court
concedes the claim of the Union.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
23rd October, 1991. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.