Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94526 Case Number: LCR14643 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Disputes concerning (1) Kegging (2) Curtains.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the issue with regard to "bottling" was
resolved locally prior to the Court hearing.
Having considered the submissions the Court recommends as follows
with regards to the two items in dispute:-
(1) Kegging - The Court recommends that the Union accepts the
clarification of the agreement by the LRC which
states inter-alia - full operation of the kegging
lane throughout the day when production warrants.
(2) Curtains - The Court notes that the Company/Contractor
agreement provides that the Contractors are
responsible for the operating of the curtains.
However, the Court accepts that exceptionally, in
the interests of efficiency, the employees of the
Company may be asked to perform this function.
The Court considers that provided this occurs on
rare occasions, the Union should agree to the
proposal. The Court further recommends that this
particular issue be reviewed after six months when
the incidence of the occurrence can be assessed.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94526 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14643
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Disputes concerning (1) Kegging (2) Curtains.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The disputes arise from the major rationalisation
agreement concluded between the parties on 18th March,
1994. Part of that agreement involved a range of work
practice issues outlined in a Company document of 27th
April, 1994 (details supplied).
The work practice proposals were clarified by the
parties in direct session during a conciliation
conference by the Labour Relations Commission (LCR) on
16th May, 1994. Following that direct session the
parties indicated that the proposals were agreed between
them. The LCR proposals on 18th May, 1994 were
incorporated into the Company's document of 27th April,
1994.
The current dispute concerns disagreement over the
meaning of aspects of the document of 27th April, 1994
as clarified in direct session on 16th May, 1994. The
disputes were the subject of a Labour Relations
Commission conciliation conference on 18th October,
1994.
2. Specifically, the issues before the Court are as
follows:-
(a) Kegging - (Clause 6 (a) (i) of document of 27th
April, 1994. The Company argue that the "operation
of kegging at capacity" means the ability to allocate
extra personnel to the area as required so as to
allow continuous kegging from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (i.e.
working through breaks).
The Union side argue that this facility is available
only at "peak period" i.e. high demand periods.
The Industrial Relations Officer of the LRC was asked to
clarify his understanding of the clause. The LRC
clarification of 24th May, 1994 stated inter-alia as
follows:-
"Insofar as kegging was concerned it was clear that
while the technical capacity for the line was 400
kegs, the realistic assessment was that capacity
performance would be of the order of 375 kegs. It
was also clear that it was proposed to allocate 2
extra personnel to the line as required so as to
facilitate working through breaks etc. from 8.00
a.m. to 5.00 p.m."
(b) Curtain Pulling - Clause 6 (b) of the document of
April, 1994. Workers have refused to agree to pull
the curtains of contractors' vehicles to facilitate
loading. The Company argue that such a facility is
necessary and reasonable.
3. No agreement could be reached on these matters at
conciliation. The disputes were referred to the Court
on 18th October, 1994. The Court investigated the
dispute in Cork on 7th December, 1994 (the earliest date
suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Kegging - The Company advised the Union that full
operation of the kegging line throughout the day would
be permitted "when production warrants." On 16th May
the Company had stated that the continuous kegging would
apply during "peak periods only". There is no dispute
between the parties as to when peak periods arise. This
was accepted in a ballot of the workers on 18th May,
1994.
2. The Union is very clear about what was agreed in
relation to continuous kegging. The Company cannot
rewrite the agreement by insisting that it had a right
to continuous kegging throughout the year. The kegging
operatives have made a huge contribution to the Company
(details supplied) without any cost increasing claims
against the Company. If continuous kegging was to
operate through the year the workers would face further
redundancies and more frequent lay-offs.
3. Curtain Pulling - It is an accepted practice in all
brewery and distillery companies in Ireland that the
responsibility for the opening and closing of curtains,
rails and container doors lies with the contractors
involved. On 16th May, 1994 the Company accepted that
this would continue to be the case (details supplied).
4. The Union is unwilling to accept conditions which are
different from similar companies and other sections of
the Company. It is unreasonable of the Company to
expect the workers to assist the contractors to do work
which was formally the workers'.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Kegging - Paragraph 6a (i) of the LRC document on which
agreement was reached on kegging states that "kegging
and bottling lines will be operated at capacity". The
Company has interpreted this to mean continuous kegging
with relief cover to be provided as necessary. The
Company's interpretation has been endorsed by the
Industrial Relations Officer of the LRC (details
supplied).
2. The plant was operated as agreed from May to August 18th
1994 until the Union adopted its position of only
allowing continuous kegging during peak periods. The
Company rejects the Unions interpretation of the
agreement. The Company's position regarding peak
periods has always been that kegging through the breaks
would be especially beneficial during peak periods.
3. Curtain Pulling - Paragraph 6a (iii) of the LRC document
in relation to truck loading states inter-alia that
"loading patterns for partial loads would be worked out
at local level by the application of common sense". The
contract drivers, under normal circumstances move the
curtains on the trucks. However, the Company requires
fork lift drivers to co-operates in moving curtains when
drivers are not available. This will assist in
maximising the efficiency of the operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the issue with regard to "bottling" was
resolved locally prior to the Court hearing.
Having considered the submissions the Court recommends as follows
with regards to the two items in dispute:-
(1) Kegging - The Court recommends that the Union accepts the
clarification of the agreement by the LRC which
states inter-alia - full operation of the kegging
lane throughout the day when production warrants.
(2) Curtains - The Court notes that the Company/Contractor
agreement provides that the Contractors are
responsible for the operating of the curtains.
However, the Court accepts that exceptionally, in
the interests of efficiency, the employees of the
Company may be asked to perform this function.
The Court considers that provided this occurs on
rare occasions, the Union should agree to the
proposal. The Court further recommends that this
particular issue be reviewed after six months when
the incidence of the occurrence can be assessed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd December, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.