Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95388 Case Number: LCR14892 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MITSUI DENMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AEEU |
Dispute concerning changes in manning and work practices.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the
changes proposed are necessary if customer demands are to be met,
costs contained and employment security assured. Accordingly the
Court recommends that as a basis for resolving the matter the
proposals of the Industrial Relations Officer be accepted subject
to the lump sums being increased by #100.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95388 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MITSUI DENMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning changes in manning and work practices.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures electrolic manganese dioxide which
is exported to dry battery manufacturers principally in
Europe and the United States. It employs approximately
twenty workers. In March, 1995, because of very severe
competition the Company proposed the introduction of a plan
for increased production which involved significant changes
in manning and shift arrangements. The Union submitted a
claim for appropriate compensation in respect of these
changes. At local level discussions the Company put forward
a set of proposals which included a pay increase and lump sum
payments in respect of the changes in shift work. The Union
rejected the proposals. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were
held on the 25th May and 6th June, 1995. At the final
conciliation conference a set of proposals (of which the
Court was made aware) was put to both parties by the
Industrial Relations Officer. The proposals were rejected by
the Union following a ballot of the membership.
Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 3rd July, 1995. A Court hearing was
held in Cork on the 16th August, 1995. A letter
recommendation was issued on the 8th September, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposals involve major changes in shift
working. They will cause major disruption for operators
who enjoyed week-ends off but will now have to provide
cover over seven days throughout the year.
2. The Union seeks the upgrading of four operators in the
electrolysis area to chargehand status. Their job
content has altered dramatically over the years with
substantial added responsibility.
3. The Union also requires that workers in the cell
re-arranging and block stripping areas be upgraded.
Major changes have taken place throughout this area with
manning levels reduced and production increased. There
are also changes in shift patterns.
4. The workers concerned must be compensated in proportion
to the increased production. They will suffer
substantial losses in overtime because of changes in
shifts.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is imperative that the Company be allowed to
implement its plan for competitiveness in order to
maintain market share, maintain the business on a
competitive footing and secure employment. The Company
has the right and responsibility to introduce shift
systems as necessary under the terms of the
Company/Union Agreement which all employees accepted.
2. In order to achieve acceptance of its plan, the Company
has offered lump sum payments and a 1% pay increase in
addition to the final phase of the P.C.W. The workers
concerned already enjoy excellent conditions and average
earnings above those in comparable industries.
3. If the Company's plan is not put in place immediately,
the Company's cost base, potential customer/market
share, and future commercial viability will be significantly
affected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the
changes proposed are necessary if customer demands are to be met,
costs contained and employment security assured. Accordingly the
Court recommends that as a basis for resolving the matter the
proposals of the Industrial Relations Officer be accepted subject
to the lump sums being increased by #100.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th September, 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.