Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93399 Case Number: AD9365 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HALLMARK CARDS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST250/93 concerning manning levels in the Forme Make department.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submission from the parties the Court is not
satisfied that it would be justified in upholding the Union's
appeal that the work in question should be retained by its
members.
In the circumstances the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioners recommendation is reasonable and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation, rejects the
appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93399 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HALLMARK CARDS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. ST250/93 concerning manning levels in the Forme
Make department.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards
Incorporated Kansas City, U.S.A. and exports all its products
to the U.K. and Europe. The Irish operation was set up in
1959 and employs approximately 280 people.
2. In February, 1993 the Company informed the Union that it
planned to make operational changes in the Form Make
department. The proposed changes were in response to
pressures in the market place and to bring production
procedures into line with the U.S.A. and Canadian Plants.
The new system would be phased in during the year and would
allow for Formes to be re-used. (Under the existing system,
Formes can only be used once).
3. There are 6 workers currently employed in the Forme Make
department. Under the Company's proposals one of the two
Lock Up operator positions would become surplus. The Company
proposed to re-deploy the worker concerned and if possible,
to a position where he could remain on shift-work. The Union
disputed the necessity to make this position surplus and
claimed that the workers concerned should be re-trained as
their work was being transferred to another operation. The
Union's position was that the workers should be allowed
to follow their work. The Company rejected this position and
the dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation.
4. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 4th
June, 1993 and issued the following findings and
recommendation dated 25th June, 1993:
"1. I have considerable sympathy with the arguments
advanced by the Union relating to the prospect of
upcoming losses for the claimants. However, I cannot
recommend that the Company's plans in the area are set
aside as a consequence.
2. I cannot at this stage recommend compensation for
the loss as this should be a matter for local
discussions when the actual losses occur. I do realise
that compensation cannot be conceded for changes which
are trade driven. However, in this case the change is
productivity related and in these circumstances the
question of compensation can be reasonably approached."
and he recommended
"I recommend that the claimants should continue to work
shift for a further period of up to say five or six
months. In the interim the management should actively
seek opportunities for reassignment to other duties
which necessitate shift working.
If no positions with shift are available then, the
parties should negotiate a settlement for loss as
suggested in 2 above as the loss is clearly related to a
productivity measure introduced which has induced the
loss."
5. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal
on 29th July, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposals represent a change in procedure
rather than a complete new process and consequently the
workers should retain their work.
2. The re-deployment of a worker will result in a loss of
earnings because of the the withdrawal of shift-work.
3. Even if the present manning levels are retained the
Company will still enjoy considerable savings as a result of
the elimination of waste.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new system is being introduced against a background
of declining sales and serious trading difficulties and is
designed to make the operation more cost efficient.
2. The system is operating successfully in the Company's
other Plants.
3. Guarantees have been given to the workers concerned in
relation to their future with the Company.
4. Concession of the Union's claim would lead to an
increase in manning levels.
DECISION:
Having considered the submission from the parties the Court is not
satisfied that it would be justified in upholding the Union's
appeal that the work in question should be retained by its
members.
In the circumstances the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioners recommendation is reasonable and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation, rejects the
appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th August, 1993 Evelyn Owens
M.D./J.C. ____________________________________
Chairman