Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95308 Case Number: LCR14817 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: STUDIO EYEWEAR LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the assignment of setters to do general work.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
sides. The Court is of the view that Clause 29 of the
Company/Union Agreement allows the Company to move employees,
including setters on temporary transfer. The concern expressed by
the Union in relation to possible loss of earnings by other
employees, due to the temporary transfer of setters, was allayed
by the Company assurance that there would be no loss of earnings.
The Court does not recommend payment to employees who were
suspended by the Company but would strongly recommend that both
parties consider the use of a body such as the advisory services
of the Labour Relations Commission with a view to improving the
Industrial Relations climate in the Company.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95308 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14817
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
STUDIO EYEWEAR LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the assignment of setters to do general
work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of spectacle frames
and employs 150 workers. It also has manufacturing plants in
Switzerland and Malta. The dispute concerns 10 setters. In
1993 the Company introduced measures to ensure increased
productivity and efficiency. In seeking to obtain maximum
flexibility, machine setters were instructed to carry out
general work as required by the Company. Two workers refused
management instructions on the grounds that the work was not
part of their job descriptions and were suspended. The other
setters stopped work and were also suspended. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 4th May, 1995. No
agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 18th
May, 1995. The workers were reinstated pending the outcome
of the hearing. The Court investigated the dispute on the
19th June, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has sought to introduce various changes in
workers' conditions of employment without adequate
discussions with the Union. This is contrary to the
Company/Union Agreement. The Company has introduced a
whole series of changes impacting on workers without
agreement (details supplied to the Court).
2. The work which the Company is asking setters to perform
is not part of their job description. This work has
rarely been performed by setters in the past and would
impact adversely on the earnings of general operatives
if undertaken by setters. The setters would also incur
hostility from fellow workers whose duties they will
perform. General operatives have expressed
dissatisfaction in relation to their ability to earn
bonus. If setters take over their work that will
exacerbate this situation.
3. The industrial relations climate presently obtaining in
the Company is very poor due to management's inability
to discuss the various contentious issues with the
Union. The Union is willing to compromise in addressing
problems and reaching solutions. They must be discussed
in a fair and reasonable manner.
4. Until the issues in dispute are resolved the Company
must return setters to normal work practices, and the
workers wrongly suspended must be paid for lost earnings
in accordance with Clause 26 of the Company/Union
Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is imperative that Management has the right to
introduce flexibility in work practices in order to
ensure competitiveness. The Company is under severe
pressure from its sister plant in Malta whose costs are
substantially lower.
2. The Company has the right, in accordance with Clause 29
of the Company/Union Agreement to transfer workers to
different jobs to ensure production needs. The refusal
of setters to comply with temporary job transfers is in
breach of the Agreement. The Company requires
flexibility from its workers to ensure operational
efficiency. Previously setters have undertaken other
duties as required without difficulty.
3. Setters transferred to operator duties will not suffer a
loss of earnings. Operative grades will also maintain
their earnings. There is ample work in the plant for
all grades. Flexibility in work practices however is
an essential requirement to scheduling work efficiently
and is vital to the ongoing viability of the Company.
4. The Company has honoured all phases of the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work. The Agreement is absolutely
clear on the issue of companies operating efficiently
and competitively. The current Union claim does not
represent a positive approach to the need to eliminate
inefficiency and rigidity in the manner in which
operations are carried out.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
sides. The Court is of the view that Clause 29 of the
Company/Union Agreement allows the Company to move employees,
including setters on temporary transfer. The concern expressed by
the Union in relation to possible loss of earnings by other
employees, due to the temporary transfer of setters, was allayed
by the Company assurance that there would be no loss of earnings.
The Court does not recommend payment to employees who were
suspended by the Company but would strongly recommend that both
parties consider the use of a body such as the advisory services
of the Labour Relations Commission with a view to improving the
Industrial Relations climate in the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th July, 1995 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.