Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93502 Case Number: AD93112 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WATERFORD FOODS PLC. - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST320/93.
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
by the Union in respect of this appeal. The Court has also
examined the detailed recommendations made by the Rights
Commissioner.
Overall the Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendations are reasonable and the acceptance of them
necessary in the interest of maintaining employment in the plant.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
The Union side raised the question of the implementation of Clause
3 of the PESP, referred to by the Rights Commissioner but not
adjudicated as it was outside his jurisdiction. The Court
considers this item was not properly before it at this time and
advises the parties to process this claim through the normal
procedures.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93502 RECOMMENDATION NO. AD11293
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WATERFORD FOODS PLC.
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST320/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns a subsidiary of the Company,
Waterford Continental Cheese, which is engaged in the
manufacture of speciality cheeses for a Dutch Company called
Wessanen. The plant opened in 1981 and employs fourteen
workers and one seasonal relief worker. The main product of
the Company is Leerdammer Cheese, which accounts for 70% of
total production.
2. In June, 1993, the Company presented a set of proposals
which it required to be addressed in the area of work
methods. The Union rejected the ten proposals (details
supplied) and the dispute was referred to the Rights
Commissioners Service for investigation and recommendation.
A Rights Commissioner investigation took place on 30th April,
1993 and site visits took place on 15th July and 4th August,
1993.
3. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (ST320/93), as
follows was issued on 5th August, 1993:
" I recommend that the parties accept the following
amendments to the Document "WCC Outstanding Issues"
produced by the Company for discussion and
agreement dated 3rd June 1993.
1. 30 minutes should read 45 minutes as this is
the perfect compromise between 60 minutes and
the 30 minutes proposed by the Company.
However this may be reduced in the future to
effect fully the concept of equalisation
within the Company.
2. In all the circumstances and having regard to
current practices I do not consider this
proposal as an unreasonable imposition and it
should be accepted by the men concerned as the
same circumstances which they fear can happen
on the early shift most mornings. However it
must be understood by local management that no
responsibility may attach to an operative in
the event that two "occurrences" take place at
the same time and he may not be able in these
circumstances to remedy both at the same time.
3. There is no way that this anomoly can remain.
This level of payment was made by mistake and
must end and I recommend that payments are
made as per existing agreements.
4. This should be accepted on the basis that it
is not an attempt by management to reduce the
total establishment but is part of a limited
attempt to reduce losses at the Plant.
However, management must accept that there are
certain operations and times when the second
man is critical to the efficient performance
of the Plant, particularly during "Brining
Outs".
5. This complex area has to be rationalised to
conform with general practice in the Group. I
recommend that any man covering where there is
an emergency involving injury at work,
sickness etc. receives the appropriate
overtime rate for all hours so worked. i.e.
Weekdays or Saturdays/Sundays.
Where a man has to leave his work for any
other reason, social or otherwise, he must
organise his own substitute, and flat time
only will be paid for the hours worked.
6. In view of the difficulties which emerged at a
recent week-end I feel that the arrangements
which emerged for this weekend were without
precedent or prejudice and should not be used
by either the Union or Management to
circumvent the arrangements for cover which
are Company-wide in their scope.
7. This proposal is Company-wide and should be
accepted and I so recommend.
8. There is a Technology Agreement which requires
that technology is accepted, adopted and
worked. There are procedures under the Job
Grading System to handle any resultant
problems or claims arising. I am concerned to
ensure that the workers involved will not
invade the work which is proper to the
Laboratory Staff and I must caution Management
in this regard. However the tests suggested,
seem to me at this remove to be in the order
of a basic mechanical procedure not requiring
the use of conceptual skills but rather what I
would describe as very low level
interpretative skills and are not a threat to
the integrity of the Laboratory Operation.
Accordingly I recommend that they are carried
out as required.
9. I am afraid that there is a significant
difficulty for the Company in their proposal
as it is quite clear that the Company-wide
Agreement specifies that the Working Week is
39 Hours over 5 Days, Monday to Friday. I,
therefore, recommend in accordance with
Company-wide practice that when cheese
production is reduced to five days which
includes Saturday production, then on a day
when there is no production (Monday to
Friday), employees may take holidays or
accrued time as they see fit.
10. I recommend that this be accepted as written.
In relation to the two items raised by the Union
which I refer to hereunder as 11 and 12
respectively I make the following recommendations
and comments.
11. The Union case for parity with the rest of the
Company in relation to Saturday Overtime
premium should succeed in the interests of
Company-wide parity. I, therefore, recommend
that time and three-quarters is paid for the
first two hours of Overtime working on 4 to 12
and 12 to 8 shifts.
12. In relation the "Grub Money" claim, I am
satisfied that the Union has made a fair case
for some payment here which again gives a form
of parity with others within the Group of
Companies. I, therefore, recommend that the
Company concedes the limited demand made here
for payment of one-third of the allowance to
five claimants.
In conclusion I must refer to the fact that the
PESP 3% featured largely in the background to the
disputed matters above and whilst I have no
statutory function in the matter I feel it would be
remiss of me in such a large undertaking as this
investigation to ignore it completely. I,
therefore, would suggest in the interests of
continuing harmony at the Plant and which is
greatly needed that Management should consider
conceding it from the date of the formal
investigation in Dublin."
4. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act 1969, on 26th August, 1993. The Labour Court
heard the appeal on 2nd December, 1993 in Kilkenny.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was rejected by the
workers by ballot on 25th August, 1993. The Union's response
to the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:
1. The Operator needs one hour to carry out his duties.
(details supplied).
2. The Vat Operator has responsibility for the operation of
all vats during his shift. When the last vat is "going down"
this is the busy time for the Control Operator (details
supplied). The Company's proposal could mean a loss of
overtime for the Vat Operator.
3. This payment has been made by custom and practice for
many years. It does not apply elsewhere and should be made
personal to holder.
4. The agreed manning of the "bottom floor" is two
Operators. The Company's proposal could eventually mean a
reduction in overall numbers in the plant.
5. This payment has applied for years. It should be made
personal to the holder.
6. The Company was able to get an Operator from another
plant when relief was required (details supplied). There is
no reason why the Operator cannot be used again in similar
circumstances
7. Acceptable.
8. There are agreed procedures for the introduction of new
technology. This proposal attempts to force operators to
carry out the work of Laboratory staff.
9. Acceptable.
10. When Operators have to cover double or long shifts, 30
minutes' break is not adequate (details supplied).
11. Acceptable.
12. The annual "Grub Money" bonus of #220 gross should be
paid to the ten Operators.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There have been substantial losses in the Company and
unless it becomes competitive, its survival is under threat.
The Company's proposals are necessary and do not impinge on
the workers in any substantial way. This has been recognised
by the Rights Commissioner, who has twice visited the plant.
2. In order for the Company to survive, the workers must
accept necessary change. Many of the changes proposed merely
bring benefits and practices within the Company into line
with those of the Group. Some of the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendations are unsuitable from the Company's view-point.
It is, however, willing to accept the Recommendation which
was put forward as a package.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
by the Union in respect of this appeal. The Court has also
examined the detailed recommendations made by the Rights
Commissioner.
Overall the Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendations are reasonable and the acceptance of them
necessary in the interest of maintaining employment in the plant.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
The Union side raised the question of the implementation of Clause
3 of the PESP, referred to by the Rights Commissioner but not
adjudicated as it was outside his jurisdiction. The Court
considers this item was not properly before it at this time and
advises the parties to process this claim through the normal
procedures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.