Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92203 Case Number: LCR13728 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TAMBRANDS IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute regarding: (1) An increase in forklift allowance for stock handlers. (2) The interpretation of Clause 13 of the Company/Union Agreement on flexibility/interchangeability.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the submissions made
by the parties on the two specific issues upon which it has been
asked to recommend.
Fork Lift Driving allowance
Having regard to the fact that the allowance in question is
incorporated into the basic rate of the workers concerned the
Court does not consider that the claim for an increase under this
heading can be sustained. The Court therefore does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Flexibility
In considering this issue the Court would point out in the first
instance that the relevant clause in the Company/Union agreement
is unqualified as to the extent of the flexibility required and
only limited in the need to ensure its fair application over the
workforce as a whole. It does not seem to the Court that the
Union have been able to sustain any particular case for the unfair
application of the Agreement which would support the overall
suspicions of the Company's motives as expressed in their
submission.
In this context, therefore, the series of actions by the employees
specified in the employer's submission are clearly contrary to the
terms of the Agreement, and the Court recommends that they should
end immediately.
It does appear to the Court however, that there is a deep and
fundamental misunderstanding between the parties as to how
necessary and ongoing change in work organisation and practice
should be dealt with. It would seem to the Court that the
Company's approach over the past years in conceding additional
overall payments in return for ongoing co-operation with change
has given rise to a situation in which specific changes required
by management are seen to be negotiable items, hence the dispute
presently before the Court.
The Court recommends that as soon as may be the parties meet and
seek to agree their approach to this important issue for the
future.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92203 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13728
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TAMBRANDS IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding:
(1) An increase in forklift allowance for stock handlers.
(2) The interpretation of Clause 13 of the Company/Union
Agreement on flexibility/interchangeability.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a subsidiary of Tambrands Inc, which set up
its Irish Operation in 1977. It employs 320 people in the
manufacture of tampax tampons and fibre/absorbent material for
other Tambrands plants in the U.K. and France.
2. Forklift Allowance
In 1987, stockhandlers were granted a forklift allowance (now
#3.50 approx) which was consolidated into basic pay. The
Union is seeking an increase of #10 per week in this allowance
on the basis that in most Companies, stockhandlers have
forklift drivers to help them. This is not the case in the
Company. The Company rejected the claim on the basis that
forklift driving is an integral part of a stockhandler's
duties.
3. Flexibility/Interchangeability
Clause 13 of the Company/Union Agreement states:-
"The Company, employees and the Union recognise the need
for complete flexibility/interchangeability in the
allocation of job assignments to individual employees.
Every effort is made to ensure that there is a fair and
reasonable distribution of all job assignments between
employees.
Efficient production is the over-riding consideration in
the allocation of job assignments".
There has been difficulty in the operation of this clause and
since January incidents have taken place whereby workers have
refused to accept particular assignments (details supplied).
4. No progress was made on these issues at local level
discussions and the disputes were referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on
15th January and 11th March, 1992. It was not possible to
resolve the disputes by conciliation and the issues were
referred to the Labour Court on 7th April, 1992. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 23rd June, 1992 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Forklift Allowance
In most companies, there is a forklift driver to assist
stockhandlers with their duties. This is not the case with
the Company and the allowance should be increased to
compensate for the extra responsibility. The Company has also
requested the workers to check oil and hydraulics on a weekly
basis. This has safety implications for the workers.
2. Flexibility/Interchangeability
The Company requires complete flexibility across the board
from section to section and department to department. The
workers have given total flexibility in all areas (details
supplied), thus ensuring that the line is kept running at all
time. Difficulties have arisen in that the Company has broken
with the status quo by taking people off the line. These
workers in effect end up double jobbing. There have been
other difficulties (details supplied).
3. The Company views Clause 13 of the agreement as a blank
cheque. They have ignored the workers' rights to negotiate on
further change which the workers believe goes far beyond the
current agreement flexibility/interchangeability. The Company
must recognise the amount of flexibility which they now have
and must negotiate meaningfully their requirements for further
flexibility. A skill and responsibility element should be
awarded which will reflect an increase in competence and
responsibility as the workforce become engaged in a greater
number of processes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Forklift Allowance
In 1987, a special allowance was given to stockhandlers which
was consolidated into basic pay. The Company cannot concede
that it is now legitimate to separate the allowance from basic
pay and apply an additional increase in excess of what was
provided for in the P.N.R. and P.E.S.P. The allowance
compares favourably with those paid in the area.
2. Flexibility/Interchangeability
The importance of the worker's contribution to change through
flexibility and interchangeability has been emphasised in
every pay deal concluded during the P.N.R. and P.E.S.P. The
Company has concluded deals on flexibility with the workers
(details supplied). The employment or earnings of the workers
have never been affected by the Company exercising its rights
under the flexibility/interchangeability clause.
3. Unfortunately there have been difficulties in operating
the clause (details supplied) and occasions where workers have
failed to co-operate with either the word or spirit of the
agreement. The Company appreciates that no agreement can
cover all potential issues that arise. The Company cannot,
however, get into a situation where it must negotiate on every
minor change, small adjustment in duties or the temporary move
of a worker to an area of more crucial need. Extensive local
discussions have taken place and the parties have failed to
come to an agreed interpretation or workable formula that
satisfies the needs of both the Company and the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the submissions made
by the parties on the two specific issues upon which it has been
asked to recommend.
Fork Lift Driving allowance
Having regard to the fact that the allowance in question is
incorporated into the basic rate of the workers concerned the
Court does not consider that the claim for an increase under this
heading can be sustained. The Court therefore does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Flexibility
In considering this issue the Court would point out in the first
instance that the relevant clause in the Company/Union agreement
is unqualified as to the extent of the flexibility required and
only limited in the need to ensure its fair application over the
workforce as a whole. It does not seem to the Court that the
Union have been able to sustain any particular case for the unfair
application of the Agreement which would support the overall
suspicions of the Company's motives as expressed in their
submission.
In this context, therefore, the series of actions by the employees
specified in the employer's submission are clearly contrary to the
terms of the Agreement, and the Court recommends that they should
end immediately.
It does appear to the Court however, that there is a deep and
fundamental misunderstanding between the parties as to how
necessary and ongoing change in work organisation and practice
should be dealt with. It would seem to the Court that the
Company's approach over the past years in conceding additional
overall payments in return for ongoing co-operation with change
has given rise to a situation in which specific changes required
by management are seen to be negotiable items, hence the dispute
presently before the Court.
The Court recommends that as soon as may be the parties meet and
seek to agree their approach to this important issue for the
future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
10th August, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.