Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94289 Case Number: LCR14473 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning extra staffing and payment for increased quality control inspection work.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the arguments put forward by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that an
absence of conclusive information does not permit of the Company
finalising the arrangements necessary to ensure the quality
standards required are achieved.
It is the view of the Court that without this information
decisions cannot be made by management regarding the most
effective method of ensuring the quality required or the manning
levels necessary to carry out the work necessary.
The Court accordingly recommends that the tests required by the
Company be undertaken as proposed for a period of six weeks, at
the end of which time the parties should assess the situation and
decide on the arrangements required to achieve a quality product
and the manning levels necessary to carry out the work required.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94289 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14473
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning extra staffing and payment for increased
quality control inspection work.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns twenty-three workers who are
employed in the bond area of the Company's Fox and Geese
plant at Clondalkin. In February, 1993 the Company
employed an independent quality control consultant to
examine its bottling and packaging operations. His
report recommended an increase in the number of
inspections to 500 samples per batch to ensure quality
before dispatch. The Company proposed to implement the
scheme on a trial basis with all members of the line
crew doing the inspection in turn. The Union claimed
that staff members should be increased by 3 and sought a
5% pay increase in return for increased flexibility.
Management rejected the Union's claim.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the
24th March, 1994. As no agreement could be reached the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th
May, 1994. A Court hearing was held on the 8th June,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The number of inspections per line per day proposed by
the Company will mean a significant increase in the work
load and added responsibility for the employees
concerned. At the present time crewing levels are at a
minimum. It is essential that 3 extra workers be
recruited to ensure a high quality line inspection. The
1987 Agreement does not give the Company a right to
impose an increased workload under the guise of
flexibility at no cost to the Company but at workers'
expense.
2. The workers concerned are entitled to a 5% increase in
respect of the extra duties. It should be paid during
the period of the trial and offered permanently to the
workers if the level of inspections remains. The
Company paid another group of workers a 5% increase for
new work practices and flexibility since the 1977
Agreement
3. The Company has made substantial profits in recent years
and can afford to pay the 5% increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has a high reputation for quality and
product excellence and it is essential that these be
maintained. The quality control inspections proposed
are similar to those already in operation in other
plants.
2. The Company pays its workers excellent wages, including
a plus payment of #45.80 per week for co-operation and
flexibility. In addition, there is a profit share
scheme where workers receive 6.25% of pre-tax company
profits for co-operation and effective working.
3. The 1987 Agreement provided for on-going change and
flexibility. The Company made a major investment in new
plant and machinery. Further investment is being made
in 1994, easing the physical work load on operatives.
4. To facilitate the trial sampling period the Company
planned to allocate an additional worker to the bottling
line being sampled. On completion of the trials, an
overall assessment will be carried out by the Company.
5. The Union's claim is cost-increasing and in breach of
both the P.E.S.P. and P.C.W.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the arguments put forward by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that an
absence of conclusive information does not permit of the Company
finalising the arrangements necessary to ensure the quality
standards required are achieved.
It is the view of the Court that without this information
decisions cannot be made by management regarding the most
effective method of ensuring the quality required or the manning
levels necessary to carry out the work necessary.
The Court accordingly recommends that the tests required by the
Company be undertaken as proposed for a period of six weeks, at
the end of which time the parties should assess the situation and
decide on the arrangements required to achieve a quality product
and the manning levels necessary to carry out the work required.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th June, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O.D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.