Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91434 Case Number: LCR13411 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION (N.E.E.T.U. |
Dispute arising from the introduction of a new bottle-making machine involving new technology.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that the introduction of new technology
should not automatically mean the displacement of craft workers
nor should craft workers be denied access to training and
development on such systems. In this particular case the Court is
of the view that the craft workers are not in fact being displaced
by the Company proposals and that the running adjustment in
dispute would appear to be a normal production operative function
in an efficient operation and should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91434 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13411
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION (N.E.E.T.U.)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute arising from the introduction of a new bottle-making
machine involving new technology.
BACKGROUND:
2. Glass bottles are made on machines known as Individual Section
(I.S.) machines. Mechanically operated machines move the newly
formed bottles on to a mechanical conveyer belt by means of a
mechanical push-out drive system. The Union represents ten I.S.
fitters who are responsible for the maintenance of the machines.
The fitters also make adjustments to the timing of the machines
and to their push-out drive system. In May, 1991 the Company
installed a new electronically operated I.S. machine to replace
one of the mechanically operated ones. The new machine includes
an electronic conveyer belt and an electronic push-out system.
Running adjustments to the electronic push-out system can be made
from a computer terminal. The Company claims that when the new
machine is commissioned running adjustments to the electronic
push-out system by way of a computer terminal will be proper to
production workers. The Union claims that the introduction of new
technology should not displace the manual work done by fitters and
that their work should be retained by the training of the fitters
in the new technology. Agreement on the dispute could not be
reached locally, but pending its investigation by a third party
the Union agreed that the new machine could be put into production
provided adjustments to the conveyer push-out system would be made
without the use of new technology. On 28th May, 1991 the dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 15th July, 1991 at which no agreement was
reached. On 14th August, 1991 the Commission referred the dispute
to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on 4th September, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Manual adjustments to the mechanical I.S. machines have
always been the responsibility of the fitters. They have a
right to retain this work. They should not be displaced
through the introduction of new technology.
2. Where new technology or plant equipment is introduced it
remains the right of the craftsmen to carry out the work which
they had previously done manually. The Company should provide
the fitters with appropriate training necessary for the new
technology.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In order to remain competitive the Company must keep up
to-date with new technology and plant machinery. The new
electronic machine is more efficient and will reduce
maintenance work and machine downtime. In 1990, about 10% of
the machine downtime was caused by mechanical push-out drive
system repairs.
2. The Company accepts that in a change-over situation
fitters are responsible for timing the electronic machines and
for the push-out speeds. However, in a production situation
any alterations to the new push-out system, which can be made
by way of electronic terminals, is a production function and
is proper to production workers. Running adjustments are a
natural and logical extension of the work that production
personnel are already doing.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts that the introduction of new technology
should not automatically mean the displacement of craft workers
nor should craft workers be denied access to training and
development on such systems. In this particular case the Court is
of the view that the craft workers are not in fact being displaced
by the Company proposals and that the running adjustment in
dispute would appear to be a normal production operative function
in an efficient operation and should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
25th September, 1991 _______________
A.S./J.C. Deputy Chairman.