Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94306 Case Number: LCR14597 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NACANCO LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for compensation for a Quality Improvement Scheme.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
satisfied that the Company is not in breach of Clause 31 of the
Company/Union Agreement and that accordingly the Company has met
its obligation to "access an award".
In all the circumstances the Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94306 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14597
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NACANCO LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for compensation for a Quality
Improvement Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures can ends in Waterford and
employs 143 workers. It operates a company-wide (90
companies) Quality Improvement Scheme with a stated
focus of quality, employee involvement and job security.
Staff suggestions under the Scheme are not costed and
recognition for the implementation of an idea is given
in a non-cash form. The scheme operates by a mechanism
of "error cause removal" (ECR), brought forward by
groups of workers who form "corrective action teams"
(CAT). Since its inception there have been 416 ECR's
brought forward of which 316 have been implemented and
76 are pending.
2. The Union sought the introduction of a structure for
payment for suggestions implemented under the scheme
where significant savings resulted. In support of this
it quoted a specific suggestion put forward by a worker
which it claims generated large savings to the Company
and which was passed on to other companies. The
Union's claim was rejected by the Company which claimed
that its policy worldwide is that there be no cash
recognition or singling out of ideas.
3. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 9th
May, 1994. No progress could be made at conciliation
and on 25th May, 1994, the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place in Waterford on 19th October, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 31 of the Company/Union Agreement states as
follows:-
"The Company will establish a method where an employee
may make suggestions for the improvement of the
operation and/or the product.
Such suggestions should be in writing and submitted to
the Personnel Department. The Company will evaluate
the suggestion and if worth while and implemented the
Company will access an award to the employee".
The Company is in breach of the Agreement by refusing to
evaluate the worker's idea and to make an appropriate
financial award to him.
2. The value, benefit and savings which the Company will
gain out of the worker's idea must be matched by a prior
financial award to him. This is a standard policy in
many companies. The Company's policy on this issue is
unfair to its workers and does not encourage the workers
to be inventive and innovative. There is a substantial
benefit to the Company by having the workers participate
positively in the Scheme.
3. It is unjust for the Company to get all the benefits
from the scheme. A fair awards scheme should be
established to reward the workers contribution in making
the Company more efficient and competitive.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All involvement in the CAT is on a voluntary basis and
all workers know the conditions before joining. The
Company does not calculate a monetary value for ECRS.
It is important to note that reducing costs is not the
primary objective or focus of the scheme.
2. The Company gives recognition to workers by other means
which have been acceptable to all participants except
the worker quoted by the Union (details supplied). The
scheme continues to operate well on a company-wide basis
and there is no need to change it.
3. The Company's workers enjoy pay and conditions of
employment which are at the "top of the league" in
Waterford and the South East. It is the philosophy of
the scheme that any recognition for involvement is in a
non-pay non-cash form. In 1994, to date, there are
approximately 50 "entitled" workers and the Company will
give recognition in non-cash form.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
satisfied that the Company is not in breach of Clause 31 of the
Company/Union Agreement and that accordingly the Company has met
its obligation to "access an award".
In all the circumstances the Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.