Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95696 Case Number: LCR15142 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CADBURYS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Moisture testing.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, finds that the
provisions of the Company/Union Agreements adequately deal with
claims such as the one before the Court.
Accordingly, it is the recommendation of the Court that the work
be carried out as proposed by the Company and that the issue of
any reward for the change of work practices be dealt with as
provided for under the terms of the Company/Union Agreements.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95696 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15142
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CADBURYS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Moisture testing.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the introduction of a fat and moisture
test in the bagging off and palletising area. Six general
operatives were requested to carry out the test, but refused
to do so without additional payment.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on 12th
July, 1995, at which agreement was not reached. At the
Company's request the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in
Tralee on 3rd April, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is normal industrial relations practice for change to
be negotiated, agreed and rewarded. The Company is
attempting to increase the workload and responsibilities
of the workers without a corresponding increase in
salary.
2. The general operatives have had no special training or
qualifications, unlike the Laboratory staff. It is
unreasonable to expect the workers to recheck work
performed by qualified personnel.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The implementation of new technology and on-going change
is specified in the Company/Union Agreements. All
workers were promoted by one grade and were paid
increases in excess of the PCW as part of the agreements
on change. There is no basis for a further increase in
salary.
2. There would be no significant increase in the workload
as the testing would take only ten minutes in an eight
hour period. The product is first tested in a
Laboratory and the second test involves reading a
computer print-out to ensure that the moisture levels
are within the specified range. If any difficulties
arise the supervisor will deal with them.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, finds that the
provisions of the Company/Union Agreements adequately deal with
claims such as the one before the Court.
Accordingly, it is the recommendation of the Court that the work
be carried out as proposed by the Company and that the issue of
any reward for the change of work practices be dealt with as
provided for under the terms of the Company/Union Agreements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th April, 1996 Tom McGrath
D.G./D.T. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.