Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94102 Case Number: LCR14408 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CHIVERS AND SONS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Operating standards in the warehouse.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submission from both parties and also
the relevant agreements. On the basis of the evidence presented
the Court has come to the conclusion that the Company's
interpretation is correct and accordingly recommends that the
Union accept that the consolidated wage rate is based on full work
load (in Work Study terms called standard performance).
Should the Company seek to alter the 1985 Agreement this must
involve discussion and negotiation with the Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94102 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14408
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CHIVERS AND SONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Operating standards in the warehouse.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns 5 warehouse operatives (order
pickers) who assemble pallets of the Company's produce in the
warehouse. It concerns the interpretation of a 1985
Company/Union Agreement relating to standards in the
warehouse and their impact on bonus earnings. The Company
claimed that the Agreement was not operated to agreed
standards of 100% performance and productivity suffered as a
result. The Union maintained that the standard rating should
be 85%. In 1992, the Company appointed work-study
consultants to introduce and set standards in the warehouse.
These were not accepted by the Union.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on the 19th
August and 22nd September, 1993, but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the
9th February, 1994. The Court investigated the dispute on
the 11th April, 1994. (The earliest date suitable to the
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is imposing a requirement for standard
performance in return for the existing basic rate of pay.
Normal industrial relations practice would suggest that basic
pay corresponds to a performance level of 75% with standard
performance being 100%. Standard performance is normally
accepted as equal to an incentive level of working.
2. The workers concerned are not satisfied with the work
targets presented to them by the Company. They are too high.
An incentive payment system, operated in the warehouse area
up to 1985, and existing bonus levels were consolidated into
a new basic rate at that time (consolidation amounted to 12%
of the then basic rate of 75% equaling to a performance level
of 84). If any performance level in excess of 84 is achieved
it should attract premium payments.
3. The Company's demand of a minimum operating level of
100% performance is not realistic and contrary to normal
industrial relations or engineering norms. It is not
supported by any agreements between the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has always paid for 100% standard rate and
pay and conditions were established at the standard rating
throughout the plant. Any adjustments downward in the
standard rating would impose substantial cost restraints on
the Company.
2. The claim has broader implications for workers
throughout the plant as the Company sets standard performance
at 100% standard rating across the plant. Any downward
adjustment could lead to consequential claims from other
workers and have serious implications for the manufacturing
operation.
3. The Company's agreements with the Union clearly state
that performance would be set up to a full workload, known as
standard performance or 100%. This has been accepted at all
times throughout the plant with the exception of the current
claim.
4. The 1985 Agreement enhanced workers' earnings but did
not alter existing standards set at 100%.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submission from both parties and also
the relevant agreements. On the basis of the evidence presented
the Court has come to the conclusion that the Company's
interpretation is correct and accordingly recommends that the
Union accept that the consolidated wage rate is based on full work
load (in Work Study terms called standard performance).
Should the Company seek to alter the 1985 Agreement this must
involve discussion and negotiation with the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th April, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.