Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92149 Case Number: LCR13640 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TECH INDUSTRIES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute regarding productivity payments for 6 machine setters.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the submissions made and the evidence given at
the hearing, the Court notes that even in the absence of specific
set-up times derived by the traditional methods of work study, the
times currently being reached are readily achieved and that this
is acknowledged by both sides.
Accordingly, the Court recommends acceptance by the Union of the
Company's position.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92149 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13640
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TECH INDUSTRIES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding productivity payments for 6 machine
setters.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 125 people in Waterford
manufacturing closures for the cosmetics' industry. The
machines for production are set up in the setting department
and generally conform to 2 types; 2 piece and 3 piece. There
has been a long standing dispute with the Company regarding
the times taken by the setters to do a set-up (details
supplied).
2. The dispute in various forms has been in negotiation
since 1988. The Company sought from the setters an
improvement in the times taken to do a set-up and various
negotiations and offers were made (details supplied). On 4th
April, 1990, a composite offer of an increase of #48 per week
was made in exchange for improved set-up times and changes in
work practices. The offer was made on the basis that there
would be no follow on claims. An agreement could not be
reached as the Union was not in a position to guarantee that
there would be no repercussive claims. Subsequent
negotiations on improved times, changes in work practices and
the introduction of new technology (details supplied) were
inconclusive.
3. In 1991, the Company recruited 2 new setters from the
general workforce. The new setters were given specific
maximum set-up times which were achieved by the setters
within 2 weeks of appointment. Following retraining/method
analysis on the setters, the Company took disciplinary action
to force all setters to conform to the specific maximum
set-up times. This was done by the setters under protest and
their productivity claim was the subject of conciliation at
the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference
was held on 12th February, 1992. The dispute was not
resolved through negotiation and it was forwarded to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on 10th
March, 1992. A Labour Court investigation took place on 7th
April, 1992 in Wexford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1989, negotiations with the Company on increasing
productivity and changes in work practices for the setters
led to an offer by the Company of #47.88 per week in
settlement of the dispute. The offer made by the Company was
accepted by the setters but 2 weeks later, the offer was
withdrawn without reason. In March, 1990, similar
negotiations led to an composite offer (details supplied) by
the Company of #48 per week. The Company on this occasion
sought in writing from the Union an undertaking that no other
member would claim an increase in pay. The Union, for
obvious reasons, was unable to give such an assurance and the
offer was subsequently withdrawn. Throughout the
negotiations, the workers continued normal working practices,
achieving the accepted set-up times for the job.
2. In 1991, 2 new setters were recruited under a new job
description which management has tried to force on the
existing setters. The Union has at all times been available
to negotiate any increase in productivity. The Union is
prepared to discuss all aspects of productivity and future
new technology. Unfortunately the only response from the
Company was to attempt to discipline the workers for carrying
out their work as it has been set out for them and accepted
by the Company for the last 12 years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has had difficulties in the setting
department for many years in regard to set-up times (details
supplied). The Company is convinced that much faster set-up
times are achievable and this contention has been proved by
the times achieved by the 2 new setters recruited from within
the existing workforce. The Company has the right to secure
reasonable performance levels. Delays and unreasonable work
practices in the setting department can have a detrimental
effect on the Company's production process and the
relationships with its customers and its parent Company.
2. There has been no difficulties within the setting
department since all setters have been working to the new
maximum times. The setting capacity must be maintained in
order to satisfy customer requirements and avoid lay offs.
The Company never accepted the previous times for set-up but
for a time was forced to accept them. The Company operates
in a very competitive environment and customer orders are
easily transferable from one supplier to another. The
Company sees the issue in dispute not as one of productivity
but the Company's right to redeploy setters who fail to
maintain the reasonable work standards which all setters have
accepted are achievable
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the submissions made and the evidence given at
the hearing, the Court notes that even in the absence of specific
set-up times derived by the traditional methods of work study, the
times currently being reached are readily achieved and that this
is acknowledged by both sides.
Accordingly, the Court recommends acceptance by the Union of the
Company's position.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
5ht May, 1992 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.