Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94172 Case Number: LCR14410 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: COCA COLA ATLANTIC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Cost and Productivity Improvement Plan.
Recommendation:
The parties, the Court notes, accept and are prepared to seek to
ensure that the plant is both efficient and cost effective.
The Court also notes that, with regard to the majority of the
issues in the Company Plan, the parties have been able to reach
agreement.
With regard to the manning of the filling lines, the Court
recognises that the employees have reservations as to the
feasability of operating the lines with the manning levels
proposed by the Company.
The Company, while of the view that the manning levels proposed
are adequate, is prepared to accept that if this is incorrect it
will redress the situation. The Court, having considered all of
the views expressed, considers that an assessment of the manning
of the lines should be carried out by an agreed independent
assessor and the Union industrial engineer (should the Union so
wish). The assessors, in carrying out their investigation, should
take account of the fears expressed by the employees at the Court
when coming to their conclusions.
The findings of the assessor should be implemented on a trial
basis for six months.
Subject to the above, the Plan as agreed between the parties
should be implemented.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94172 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14410
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
COCA COLA ATLANTIC
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Cost and Productivity Improvement Plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is fully owned by the Coca-Cola Corporation in
the U.S.A.. It employs approximately 320 workers in Drogheda, 135
of those in the production area, and has been in operation since
1974. In 1989, the Coca-Cola Corporation opened a second
production company in France.
In 1991/92, the Company invested #27 million in new production,
warehouse and office facilities with a view to increasing output
from its present 4 million units to 6 million units by 1997. In
November 1993, the Company presented its Cost and Productivity
Improvement Plan to the Union. The plan sought the following:-
1. Reductions in manning in some areas of production.
2. Reallocation of those displaced to other production
areas.
3. Recording of the actual output levels achieved in
each production area by the chargehands on an
hourly basis.
4. A phased increase in output to a minimum level of
70% of the maximum rated capacity of the process
equipment.
A number of meetings were held at local level to discuss the
proposed changes. On 23rd December, 1993, the Company met the
Union to discuss the Plan. There was disagreement on a number of
issues, principally the filling lines and measurement of output on
an hourly basis.
After more local level discussions it was agreed to refer the
dispute to the Labour Relations Commission. Three conciliation
conferences took place. At a conciliation conference on 4th
March, 1994, the Union accepted the Company's proposal for an
eight week trial period on the production recording system. The
only issue in dispute was the filling lines. The Company proposed
4 crews of 5 workers. The Union's proposal was 2 crews of 5
workers and 2 crews of 6.
Agreement could not be reached and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 21st March, 1994 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 31st March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has agreed to all the Company's proposals
regarding the Cost and Productivity Improvement Plan. It has
agreed to the redeployment of fourteen workers as the Company
sought. The only area in dispute is the filling line. This
is the area where most concessions have been made.
Experience has shown that 2 crews of 5 and 2 crews of 6 on
the filling line are necessary for maximum production. The
Union has agreed to review the situation in twelve months'
time.
2. The workers concerned have accepted the introduction of
the Company's Plan without any claims for increased pay or
compensation. It is not possible to give more than the
workers have offered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1991/92 expansion plan envisaged increasing output
by 50% by 1997. This must be achieved with the existing
equipment and workers without increasing costs. The European
market accounts for 85% of the Company's annual output. The
Company is in direct competition with its French counterpart.
Last year the French plant produced the equivalent of 80% of
the Company's output while employing 55% of the workers.
2. All aspects of the Cost and Productivity Improvement
Plant must be implemented if the Company is to compete with
other Coca-Cola plants. Failure to do so would lead to loss
of jobs in the Company and put its long term future at risk.
3. The Company is prepared to agree to an independent third
party assessment of manning on the filling lines.
RECOMMENDATION:
The parties, the Court notes, accept and are prepared to seek to
ensure that the plant is both efficient and cost effective.
The Court also notes that, with regard to the majority of the
issues in the Company Plan, the parties have been able to reach
agreement.
With regard to the manning of the filling lines, the Court
recognises that the employees have reservations as to the
feasability of operating the lines with the manning levels
proposed by the Company.
The Company, while of the view that the manning levels proposed
are adequate, is prepared to accept that if this is incorrect it
will redress the situation. The Court, having considered all of
the views expressed, considers that an assessment of the manning
of the lines should be carried out by an agreed independent
assessor and the Union industrial engineer (should the Union so
wish). The assessors, in carrying out their investigation, should
take account of the fears expressed by the employees at the Court
when coming to their conclusions.
The findings of the assessor should be implemented on a trial
basis for six months.
Subject to the above, the Plan as agreed between the parties
should be implemented.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th April, 1994 Tom McGrath
C.O.N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.