Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95537 Case Number: LCR15040 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Interpretation of Clause 15 of the 1990 Agreement.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds
that the re-study of the work concerned in this case was not
contrary to the provisions of Clause 15:2 of the Company/Union
Agreement. In this regard the Court notes the appeals procedure
afforded under Clause 15 to employees involved in re-study
exercises.
However, the Court considers there was inadequate consultation
with the staff as to the necessity for the carrying out of the
study.
If the full co-operation of the staff is to be forthcoming there
is a need to ensure all concerned are fully aware of the reasons
why studies or re-studies are being carried out.
For the future the Court recommends that there is full discussions
with the workers concerned when studies are to be conducted.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95537 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15040
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WATERFORD CRYSTAL
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of Clause 15 of the 1990 Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. In February, 1995, the Company installed a new washer drier
machine on the production line after the acid polishing
operation at its Butlerstown plant. The object of the
introduction was to reduce the wiping element and make the
examining process easier. Management then undertook a check
study of the downline wiping and examining elements, to
examine the impact of the new machine on the bonus scheme and
modify the scheme accordingly. The Company maintained that
it had the right, under Clause 15 of the 1990 Agreement to
carry out this study. The Union claimed that management's
proposal to merge the wiping and examining elements of an
operative's duty was contrary to the 1990 Agreement and
adversely impacted on the worker's bonus earnings. The
Company implemented the scheme on 3rd July, 1995. On the
11th July an unofficial stoppage occurred, as the operatives
protested against the new scheme. Work resumed on 12th July
and following protracted local discussions further check
studies took place resulting in an agreed scheme being put in
place.
The parties still could not reach agreement on the correct
interpretation of Clause 15 of the 1990 Agreement, and on the
20th September, 1995 the Union referred the issue to the
Labour court. A Court hearing was held in Waterford on the
18th October, 1995. The hearing was adjourned to enable the
parties provide additional information to the Court. A
further hearing was held on the 14th December, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejects the Company's claim that it had the
right (under Clause 15) to change the performance in the
wash/packing areas as a result of introduction of the
new machine. Its introduction did not directly affect
all workers in the area, and in the case of one worker
her performance remained exactly the same in every
aspect as it had prior to the machine being put in
place. The Company reduced standards downwards by 9.3%,
eliminated an estimated allowance and put in a fixed
value of 3.6%.
2. The changes resulted in a reduction in bonus for this
worker, dispite the fact that the new machine did not in
any way impact on her work, as the product on which she
made her bonus was not processed through the machine.
3. The Company was in breach of Clause 15 of the 1990
Agreement in changing the performance system for the
worker concerned, because nothing in Clause 15:2
actually affected her.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under Clause 15:2 of the 1990 Agreement management has
the right to establish, examine, review and implement
new work standards and incentive bonus systems where
they already exist and where none exist. Management
also has the right to examine and review standards where
changes occur in either the method, lay-out, plant,
equipment or manpower level.
2. As a consequence of the installation of the washer/drier
machine, the method and work content changed. The
Company was entitled to re-study the operations downline
from the machine to check the impact on workvalues and
on operatives' work loads.
3. The Union's contention that the Company had no right to
study or change work standards on the giftware line,
within the packing area is incorrect. All giftware
glass is processed through the machine. Consequently it
is cleaner and drier, and requires less wiping. During
the re-study the S.M.V.'s for wiping pink polish
repaired giftware were revised. The existing estimated
value was three times the time established based on the
re-study.
4. The objective of a re-study is to establish the correct
work values. These values are open to re-checking, to
assessment by the Union's own industrial engineer and an
independent examination by the IPC who ultimately
determine the correct values.
5. Any dilution of the Company's rights under the explicit
provisions of Clause 15 of the 1990 Agreement would be a
retrograde step and set back efforts to be truly
competitive.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds
that the re-study of the work concerned in this case was not
contrary to the provisions of Clause 15:2 of the Company/Union
Agreement. In this regard the Court notes the appeals procedure
afforded under Clause 15 to employees involved in re-study
exercises.
However, the Court considers there was inadequate consultation
with the staff as to the necessity for the carrying out of the
study.
If the full co-operation of the staff is to be forthcoming there
is a need to ensure all concerned are fully aware of the reasons
why studies or re-studies are being carried out.
For the future the Court recommends that there is full discussions
with the workers concerned when studies are to be conducted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st December, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.