Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92204 Case Number: LCR13622 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KRUPS ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's proposals to transfer indirect workers to direct production work.
Recommendation:
5. It is evident to the Court that the exercise of
re-organisation by the Company is being undertaken to strengthen
and safeguard the position of the Limerick plant within the new
group.
The Court notes the undertakings given to the workforce
regarding no loss of jobs to the existing workforce. In this
context, and having regard to the wording of the current
agreement, the Court considers that the measures being proposed
by the Company in relation to indirect operatives is both in
keeping with the intent of the agreement and is reasonable in
the present circumstances.
The Court notes that the Company have undertaken to negotiate on
compensation for any loss of earnings involved.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept the
company's proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________
9th June, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92204 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13622
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KRUPS ENGINEERING LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's proposals to transfer
indirect workers to direct production work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 650 permanent employees
of which approximately 450 are general workers. In January,
1991 the Krups group was taken over by the French owned Moulinex
Group. Immediately after the takeover the Moulinex group gave
the employees at the Limerick Plant an assurance that there
would be no loss of jobs or redundancies among the permanent
workforce. The Company decided on a general re-organisation of
work practices in order to become more competitive and increase
production. The main aim of the re-organisation plan is to
transfer workers not physically involved in the making of
product (i.e., indirect workers) to production work (i.e.,
direct workers). In early 1991 a dispute arose when the Company
proposed to implement the re-organisation plan in the tool room
area which involves the transfer of general workers to direct
production work and their replacement by other grades. The
Company claims that a re-organisation of staffing arrangements
in the tool room area is necessary and is covered by existing
agreements. The Union objects to the manner of implementation
of the re-organisation plan in the tool room area. No agreement
could be reached at local level discussions and the matter was
referred on 19th March, 1992 to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 20th and 27th March, 1992
at which no agreement was reached. On 7th April, 1992 the
matter was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 8th April, 1992 and issued a
recommendation by letter on 9th April, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Where general worker posts no longer exist the Union
has no objection to the workers concerned being transferred
to other areas. However, where general worker posts still
remain, it is unfair to transfer the general workers
concerned to other areas and replace them with other
grades. If most of the jobs remain in a particular area
then the occupants should remain in those jobs.
2. The Company claims that it has the right to make
changes under Clause 14(a) of the Company/Union agreement
which states "The Company reserves the right to change any
employee to any other work place". This particular
agreement was drawn up solely to cover the general workers
and relates to movement within sections. It was not
intended to cover movement from one section to another
section.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's re-organisation plan is necessary in
order to increase production and is fully in line with
normal management practice. It is covered by clause 14(a)
of the Company/Union agreement. The Company has acted in a
fair and reasonable manner and, where possible, amended its
position to try to meet the Union's concerns.
2. The delay in moving indirect workers to direct work is
hindering management's efforts to safeguard the plant's
position within the new group. The re-organisation plan is
essential to the survival of the plant and the necessary
changes in work patterns and procedures must be made
without further delay.
RECOMMENDATION
5. It is evident to the Court that the exercise of
re-organisation by the Company is being undertaken to strengthen
and safeguard the position of the Limerick plant within the new
group.
The Court notes the undertakings given to the workforce
regarding no loss of jobs to the existing workforce. In this
context, and having regard to the wording of the current
agreement, the Court considers that the measures being proposed
by the Company in relation to indirect operatives is both in
keeping with the intent of the agreement and is reasonable in
the present circumstances.
The Court notes that the Company have undertaken to negotiate on
compensation for any loss of earnings involved.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept the
company's proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________
9th June, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.