Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92712 Case Number: LCR13933 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BAILEY GIBSON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning compensation for de-manning.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered the views of the parties expressed
in their oral and written submissions and has noted the details of
the settlements of the January, 1992 dispute, out of which this
case has arisen.
In the interest of maintaining and improving the industrial
relations climate, and subject to full co-operation with the
necessary changes in work practices the Court recommends that an
increase of 6% be paid to the workers concerned in this claim with
effect from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92712 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13933
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BAILEY GIBSON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning compensation for de-manning.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established over a hundred years ago and
was originally a packaging manufacturer and supplier active
in most Irish packaging market sectors. It is now
exclusively a folding carton manufacturer serving the Irish
food, pharmaceutical and beverage markets.
2. Following a dispute, work resumed on the 15th January,
1992 on the basis of settlement proposals put forward by the
Labour Relations Commission. Among these proposals was
Clause 4 which stated:
"In the interests of resolution the Company is prepared
to meet the Union at local level, without committment,
to discuss compensation for de-manning."
The Union claim that substantial extra work has arisen for 10
workers as a result of changed work practices and substantial
savings have accrued to the Company as a result of these
changes. The Company rejected the claim for compensation.
3. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 2nd April, 1992 and a conciliation
conference took place on the 25th August, 1992. No agreement
could be reached and the dispute was referred by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the 25th
November, 1992. The Court investigated the matter on the
12th January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company, without consultation, reduced the number of
men running the 3 Bobst machine from three to two.
2. The Company reduced the number of men servicing all
three Bobst machines from two to one.
3. The Company made substantial savings with these manning
alterations.
4. Changes in work practices increased the work load rather
than the manning level.
5. The women workers received a 6% increase for far fewer
changes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At previous levels of activity the cutting and creasing
department was over manned.
2. Since January, 1992 the work level has decreased by 17%
due to market conditions.
3. New work practices in printing have reduced the work
level by 31% in cutting and creasing since January, 1992.
4. Since January, 1992 there have been no complaints about
people being overworked, or not having enough time to
complete work in an orderly fashion.
5. The four general operatives in the cutting and creasing
department are doing less work than they were in 1991.
6. Claims for compensation have been made by the Union
solely due to there being less general operatives in the
department.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered the views of the parties expressed
in their oral and written submissions and has noted the details of
the settlements of the January, 1992 dispute, out of which this
case has arisen.
In the interest of maintaining and improving the industrial
relations climate, and subject to full co-operation with the
necessary changes in work practices the Court recommends that an
increase of 6% be paid to the workers concerned in this claim with
effect from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th January, 1993 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. ____________________________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.