Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93185 Case Number: LCR14115 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KERRY INGREDIENTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning (i) the appointment of an Industrial Engineer to assist in assessing the merit of a re-grading claim and (ii) the granting of permission to the Union's Industrial Engineer to carry out an on-site inspection/assessment.
Recommendation:
5. The dispute referred to the Court for recommendation concerned
the appointment of an Industrial Engineer to assess the merit of a
re-grading claim and in particular the Company allowing access to
the Union's Industrial Engineer.
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
recommends that the Union
(a) Agree to the appointment of an Industrial Engineer from
The Irish Productivity Centre (I.P.C.), as proposed by
the Company,
(b) The Company agree that any report prepared by the I.P.C.
be given to the Union who will be free to discuss its
contents with their own Industrial Engineer.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93185 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14115
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KERRY INGREDIENTS LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning (i) the appointment of an Industrial
Engineer to assist in assessing the merit of a re-grading claim
and (ii) the granting of permission to the Union's Industrial
Engineer to carry out an on-site inspection/assessment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of the Kerry Group and employs up 450
workers at peak production times. The dispute follows a claim by
the Union for the re-grading of 13 service personnel arising from
the proposed implementation of changes in work-practice, and a
number of redundancies (3).
The Union contends that changes in work-practice will lead to
increased responsibility and a heavier workload for remaining
personnel. The Company's position is that the work involved for
the remaining personnel is appropriate to their Grade (Grade 5)
and that the workload will be well within that currently performed
by the Service Operators.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 23rd of March, 1993, at
which it was broadly agreed that the views of an Industrial
Engineer would be helpful in the resolution of the dispute.
The Company indicated that it would be agreeable to the
involvement of an independent Industrial Engineer but refused
access to the Union's Engineer. The Union has insisted on its
right to the advice of its own Engineer. No agreement was reached
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of
March, 1993. The Court investigated the dispute, in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, in
Tralee, on the 1st of June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers in the services department feel that it will
be impossible to carry out all of the new work-load. It is
imperative therefore, that Union be allowed to use all its
resources in pursuing the workers' claim.
2. It is unprecedented in the industry for a Company to
refuse permission for the use by the Union of its qualified
Industrial Engineer, to assess the new work-loads involved and
to advise on the feasibility of a re-grading claim.
3. In the broader area of the Kerry Group, access is afforded
to the Union's Industrial Engineers to carry out their own
investigations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company is making a significant capital investment
with a view to streamlining the overall Services Operation.
This will lead to the reduction or elimination of many of the
existing tasks being performed by the Services team.
2. All tasks being carried by the Grade 5 operators are Grade 5
tasks (details supplied to the Court) and accordingly there is
no justification in the claim for re-grading.
3. The Company is prepared to have an evaluation of
work-practices carried out by an independent body such as the
Irish Productivity Centre. It would be contrary to Company
policy to grant the Union's Industrial Engineer access to its
sites.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The dispute referred to the Court for recommendation concerned
the appointment of an Industrial Engineer to assess the merit of a
re-grading claim and in particular the Company allowing access to
the Union's Industrial Engineer.
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
recommends that the Union
(a) Agree to the appointment of an Industrial Engineer from
The Irish Productivity Centre (I.P.C.), as proposed by
the Company,
(b) The Company agree that any report prepared by the I.P.C.
be given to the Union who will be free to discuss its
contents with their own Industrial Engineer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
21st June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.