Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95109 Case Number: AD9534 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 414/94.
Recommendation:
The Court considered all of the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions.
Given the present level of competition in the industry, it is
imperative that there is full co-operation between the parties
with such change as is necessary to improve the profitability of
the Company, secure its future and that of the employees. It is
the view of the Court, given that the parties were prepared to
have the matter adjudicated on by a third party, that the change
could have been implemented pending the outcome of the third party
intervention. It is the decision of the Court that the required
changes be implemented immediately and that, in an endeavour to
develop a climate of full co-operation, the Company, as a gesture
of good will in this case, pay to the employees concerned the
award made by the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95109 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3495
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CANTRELL AND COCHRANE LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST
414/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union for compensation
for two operatives arising from the re-location (70 yards
away) of their work station within the plant, and for the
alleged additional responsibilities involved. The Company
rejected the claim on the basis that the change caused
minimal inconvenience. The claim was investigated by a
Rights Commissioner who recommended that, as a "fair case has
been made for some consideration for the two claimants", the
two workers "should amend their job demarcation lines to
permit the changeover and that, on foot of this
consideration, the Company should concede a once-off goodwill
payment of #200 to each man without precedent or prejudice".
The Recommendation was appealed by the Company on the 6th of
February, 1995, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal
on the 27th of March, 1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Neither worker has any increased workload - this was
accepted by the Rights Commissioner.
2. The addition of extra conveyoring necessitated the
change and this was done to solve ongoing technical
problems with line balance and to assist in consistent
production outputs. These type of changes are carried
out to ensure that the Company can reach planned line
outputs. The change was not made to reduce headcount or
to increase productivity above the rated levels for the
line.
3. The Union has not agreed to allow the change to take
place prior to the Court hearing. Effectively, this has
meant that the operator must be called 70 yards from his
own machine. This inevitably has caused delays in a
situation where the Company is under grave market
pressure from imports and competitors with much lower
cost-bases.
4. The Company is concerned that the Union reaction to such
an insignificant change as this, is extremely negative
and will restrict the Company's ability to react quickly
to the needs of an extremely competitive and rapidly
changing market.
5. The Company is now solely relying on the grocery trade
for its existence following group re-organisation. As a
consequence it is now in a loss-making operation and is
developing a major cost-reduction programme to return to
profitability. In this context extremely spurious
claims for compensation where no justification exists
must be strongly contested by the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has argued that the change is a 'normal
ongoing one' and that concession of the claim would set
a precedent. The Company has historically negotiated
change. Substantial negotiations have taken place
regarding changes in 1984, 1989 and 1992. Apart from
these dates, 'normal ongoing change' has occurred and
has been the subject of negotiated settlements, yielding
financial compensation. The investment in the
conveyoring system is significant and is not 'normal
ongoing change', rather, a spin-off of the Production
Development Plan (P.D.P), finalised in 1992.
2. The Union is anxious to establish that the P.D.P. is not
open-ended and the workers insist that it is implemented
as written.
3. The workers are not resisting change, only seeking to
have their claim recognised.
4. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation provides a
formula whereby the conflict could be satisfactorily
resolved.
DECISION:
The Court considered all of the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions.
Given the present level of competition in the industry, it is
imperative that there is full co-operation between the parties
with such change as is necessary to improve the profitability of
the Company, secure its future and that of the employees. It is
the view of the Court, given that the parties were prepared to
have the matter adjudicated on by a third party, that the change
could have been implemented pending the outcome of the third party
intervention. It is the decision of the Court that the required
changes be implemented immediately and that, in an endeavour to
develop a climate of full co-operation, the Company, as a gesture
of good will in this case, pay to the employees concerned the
award made by the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th April, 1995 Tom McGrath
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman