Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92107 Case Number: LCR13637 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WEXFORD CREAMERY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute regarding productivity.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the written submissions and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider
that the claimants have established grounds on which the Court
could recommend concession of their claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92107 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13637
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: WEXFORD CREAMERY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding productivity.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 100 workers (70 are Union Members)
in the manufacture of cheese. The Company's principal market
is in the United Kingdom. It also has a small liquid milk
plant servicing the Wexford area. The Company closes each
year for 18 weeks due to the seasonal lack of raw materials
(milk).
2. In 1991, the Company installed a new packing machine
during the close-down period, which was ready for the start
of the 1991 season. The installation of the new machine
resulted in a number of seasonal workers not being recalled
and the permanent cheesemaking workforce being reduced by 3.
An agreement was reached with the Union regarding the
seasonal workers and the 3 permanent workers were
accommodated in the liquid milk plant.
3. The Union made a claim on behalf of the remaining
production operatives for an increase in wages of 20% for the
increased productivity, arising from the staff reductions and
the increase in productivity per person brought about by the
new machine. The Company rejected the claim. Other new
machinery in place is not being operated by the workers
pending the outcome of these negotiations. The claim was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation
conferences were held on 15th November and
6th December, 1991. It was not possible to resolve the
dispute through negotiation and it was referred to the Labour
Court on 14th February, 1992. A Labour Court investigation
took place in Wexford on 7th April, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The installation of the new packaging machine has
resulted in a reduction in the number of production
operatives from 26 to 9 and the reduction of 2 cheesemakers
and 1 supervisor. There is more machinery in place to reduce
numbers further (details supplied). The workforce reductions
has led to a large rise in productivity per worker. This
rise in productivity has been documented by an industrial
engineer of the Union (details supplied). This increased
productivity should also be examined in the light of the
doubling of production at the creamery over the last decade
(details supplied).
2. The Union is seeking a 20% increase in basic pay. The
basis of the productivity claim is that staffing levels have
been reduced and as a result there has been a significant
increase in productivity per person. There is no incentive
scheme in operation at the Company and the changes have
brought no improvement in the wages of the workers. The
estimate on labour savings alone is £200,000 per annum.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new packing machine is similar to machinery which
has been in use for many years at most other cheese
factories. Staffing reductions which arose as a result were
negotiated and agreed with the Union. The new machinery has
not affected any workers with the possible exception of 2
storepersons on whose behalf the Union are making a separate
claim.
2. There is no productivity benefit accruing to the Company
by the installation of the machine. Ongoing rationalisation
is a feature of the industry and the machine brings the
Company into line with the type of machine operated as
standard by its competitors. Efficiency levels must be
equivalent to those of the competitors of the Company and as
a result normal ongoing change must be an established feature
of this employment. If the claim is conceded, repercussive
claims will arise from sectional groups who have had similar
claims rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the written submissions and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider
that the claimants have established grounds on which the Court
could recommend concession of their claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
29th April, 1992 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman