Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92759 Case Number: LCR13962 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ALLEGRO LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Various issues concerning ongoing change.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends on the individual issues raised at the hearing as
follows:
Firelighter Production Work Standards:
The Court is satisfied that the Consultants' report, as later
clarified, recommends a manning of a team of 4 members and
recommends that this be implemented without further delay.
Fork-lift Rota:
The Court is of the opinion that on this issue, further
examination of the impact on income and conditions of
implementation of fixed manning of fork-lifts might be required,
in order to assess terms for an equitable agreement. The Court
recommends that such examination takes place.
Loading of Third-Party Vehicles:
The Court recommends that the Company's proposed system be
accepted particularly as it increases the efficiency of the
operation and furthermore does not jeopardise the jobs of existing
staff.
Crewing of Production Fork-lift:
The Court recommends that the Company's proposal be accepted.
On-going Change:
On this matter, it is clear to the Court that the parties must
negotiate a means whereby the requirements of those firms on whose
behalf the Company acts are met without undue argument or delay.
Some but by no means all of the changes will of course have
implications for industrial relations. The Court is concerned
that mutual confidence be developed and reinforced. Given the
proper level of consultation with those directly concerned, and
sufficient mutual confidence, it should be possible to deal with
the industrial relations aspects of the changes after the changes
have been implemented.
If necessary the Court would recommend that the parties seek
external advise on how best to manage necessary on-going change.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92759 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13962
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ALLEGRO LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Various issues concerning ongoing change.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a major distributor to the grocery trade. It
also manufactures firelighters, liquid detergent, powder blended
products and pasta under the Roma brand name. The Company is
located in the Sandyford Industrial Estate and employs
approximately 200 workers.
The issues in dispute are as follows:
1. Bulk Production Area - Manning levels.
2. Firelighter Production Area - Manning levels/Work
standards.
3. The failure of the Union to accept the concept of ongoing
change.
4. Fork-lift Rate Agreement.
5. Loading of third-party vehicles.
6. Crewing of production fork-lift.
Both Bulk Production and Firelighter Production have been the
subject of work-study exercises which were designed to lead to
agreement on more efficient manning-levels. The dispute
concerning the issues listed 1-6 was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission, and conciliation conferences were held on
the 8th of October, 1992 and the 19th of November, 1992 at which
agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 4th of December, 1992 in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Labour Court investigated the dispute on the 29th of January,
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. Bulk-Production Area; Manning Levels.
1. Four production-workers and one service-operator are
currently responsible for processing in the Bulk Production
area. The Company has proposed that the manning level be
reduced to 3 workers. The Union's position is that the
manning level should be reduced to 4, including the service
operator, and that the worker required to move from the
production area would continue to hold all existing rates and
bonus entitlements. The reduction in manning would take
account of production which has been contracted-out to outside
agents.
Firelighter Production Area; Manning-Levels/Work Standards.
2. The continuous running of machinery with a manning-level
of five, on staggered breaks, would effectively result in a
manning-level of only four workers for all but a few hours
each day.
Non-Acceptance by Union of ongoing change.
3. Workers have accepted major changes on an ongoing basis.
The Union is entitled to expect that changes required by the
Company must be negotiated through the existing procedural
agreement.
Fork-Lift Rota Agreement.
4. The Company's Agreement with the Fork-lift Drivers' Group
caters for the month-by-month rotation of operational
functions between the drivers. The Company's proposal that
they chose particular drivers for particular operations is
both unfair and selective.
Loading of Third-party Vehicles.
5. The loading of third-party vehicles has been a function of
the Fork-lift Drivers' section. If third-party hauliers'
staff were allowed to perform this function it would result in
a loss of work to the Fork-lift Drivers.
Crewing of Production Fork-lifts.
6. The Fork-lift Drivers have always handled fork-lift
requirements in all areas of the Company. There is no valid
reason for the change requested by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. Bulk-Production Area.
1. As an alternative to the closure of the manufacturing
facility there has been a cessation of production of non
cost-effective lines and a reduction in the space occupied by
production. It is necessary therefore to implement the
manning proposals recommended by the work-study, i.e. 3
workers on a completely flexible basis.
Firelighter Production Area.
2. Following automation of part of the line in 1990,
work-standards established in 1983 continued in operation.
The work-study recommended (July, 1992) that manning be
reduced to four. A further work-study recommended (October,
1992), that there would be sufficient work for five if the
lines were continuously running from 8.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The
Company has kept open the alternative option of a 5th worker,
with staggering of tea-breaks, but this option has not been
accepted.
Ongoing Change.
3. The Company seeks to develop a mechanism through which the
Works Committee could provide a rapid response to changes.
Existing procedures are too complex. The Company must be in a
position to respond rapidly to the changing demands of
customers and principals.
Fork-lift Rota Agreement.
4. The Company favours the allocation of individuals to
particular operations based on their skill-levels. With as
many as 500 different product-lines in the warehouse, drivers
are only becoming acquainted with the location of products
when they have to move to another job.
Loading of Third-Party Vehicles.
5. The Union insists that the third-party drivers must wait
while a warehouse or forklift operator places the assembled
load on the tail-lift of his vehicle. This system is
inefficient particularly when the forklifts are required for
duties elsewhere in the warehouse.
6. The Union insists that production areas should continue to
be serviced by a warehouse fork-lift driver, whose primary
duties would be in the production-area. This means that when
a driver is delayed in a job in the warehouse he is not
readily accessible to the production area.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends on the individual issues raised at the hearing as
follows:
Firelighter Production Work Standards:
The Court is satisfied that the Consultants' report, as later
clarified, recommends a manning of a team of 4 members and
recommends that this be implemented without further delay.
Fork-lift Rota:
The Court is of the opinion that on this issue, further
examination of the impact on income and conditions of
implementation of fixed manning of fork-lifts might be required,
in order to assess terms for an equitable agreement. The Court
recommends that such examination takes place.
Loading of Third-Party Vehicles:
The Court recommends that the Company's proposed system be
accepted particularly as it increases the efficiency of the
operation and furthermore does not jeopardise the jobs of existing
staff.
Crewing of Production Fork-lift:
The Court recommends that the Company's proposal be accepted.
On-going Change:
On this matter, it is clear to the Court that the parties must
negotiate a means whereby the requirements of those firms on whose
behalf the Company acts are met without undue argument or delay.
Some but by no means all of the changes will of course have
implications for industrial relations. The Court is concerned
that mutual confidence be developed and reinforced. Given the
proper level of consultation with those directly concerned, and
sufficient mutual confidence, it should be possible to deal with
the industrial relations aspects of the changes after the changes
have been implemented.
If necessary the Court would recommend that the parties seek
external advise on how best to manage necessary on-going change.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
--------------
19th February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.