Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95157 Case Number: LCR14742 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Interpretation of agreement relating to orientation.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, and the
agreement concerned, the Court has concluded that the concept of
"team working" is essential if the Company is to remain
competitive.
The Court accordingly considers that the Company's position is
reasonable and should be upheld.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95157 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14742
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of agreement relating to orientation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 400 workers in the production of glass
containers.
The dispute before the Court concerns the interpretation of
the Company/Union rationalisation agreement reached in 1992,
relating to 'orientation'. The job entails turning bottles
to face the correct way to allow mechanical packaging.
The Company's position is that the agreement specifically
allows it to put on additional staff for this task on the
basis that the additional worker joins the other workers as
part of a team, all sharing responsibility to ensure that the
bottles are packed in accordance with customers'
requirements.
The Union claims that the agreement covers orinetation but in
a 'hand packing' situation only.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place in August, 1994. As no
agreement was reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 27th February, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 3rd April, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreement covers orientation but in a hand packing
situation only. The question of orientation in a bulk
packing fully automatic operation was never discussed,
negotiated or agreed upon and it was not covered in the
job description.
2. The Company's interpretation of the agreement is wrong.
It is attempting to extend the agreement to cover an
automatic operation for which no agreement exists. A
similar dispute regarding light stations was the subject
of a Labour Court investigation in 1991. The Court in
recommendation LCR13449 recommended in the Union's
favour.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Company's understanding that the agreement
specifically allows it to put on additional workers for
this task on the basis that the worker joins the other
workers as part of a team, all sharing equal
responsibility to ensure that bottles are packed in
accordance with customers' requirements.
2. The Company accepts that the facing of bottles
represents additional work in the unit and that
consequently additional help may be required. This is
covered by the agreement which states that the team's
main objective is to ensure that only good quality
bottles, acceptable to individual customers'
requirements are sorted and packed correctly and that
any back-ups or spares allocated to supplement a team,
constitute an overall quality team.
3. The Company is concerned at the Union's approach to this
matter and is convinced that the worker's interpretation
is incorrect and that, in the circumstances, there is no
justification in the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, and the
agreement concerned, the Court has concluded that the concept of
"team working" is essential if the Company is to remain
competitive.
The Court accordingly considers that the Company's position is
reasonable and should be upheld.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th April, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.