FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH COUNTRY MEATS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Disputed standards.
BACKGROUND:
2. Irish Country Meats Pigmeat Limited, Rooskey, Co. Roscommon is a pork and bacon plant employing over five hundred people and is part of the Avonmore Meat Division.
The dispute involves approximately thirty leg and shoulder boners at the Rooskey plant. In March/April 1996 the Company undertook a review of a number of standards/specifications in the factory and came up with new timings. These results were subsequently checked by the Union's work study engineer who came up with different figures with regard to four specific jobs. The following table sets out the position of both parties:-
SPECIFICATIONSCOMPANY UNION
7555 305 290
7559 206 196
7581 155 143
7580 180 170
The Union also has concerns about procedural matters such as how new standards are to be established, blockages on the line, lead-in-period, compensation for loss of earnings, changeover to different products, workers who are unable to meet the new targets set, and also the very heavy/hard shoulders. It also had reservations regarding boning specification 7351.
Several meetings took place at local level to try and resolve the dispute but without success. As no agreement was possible the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A Conciliation conference was held in Longford on the 19th June, 1996 and on the 26th June, 1996 but no agreement could be reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th June, 1996 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 5th July, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current standards were agreed and in operation for two years. There was no change in methodology or technology so standards should not have been changed.
2. The Company is in breach of an agreement in relation to standards already in operation at the plant.
3. The weight of animals processed at the plant has increased substantially over the years to the benefit of the Company. There was no need therefore, to increase the standards.
4. The workers should be compensated for any loss of earnings as a result of the proposed new standards.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The standards proposed by the Company are attainable. They are being achieved by other companies in the group.
2. If the proposed standards cannot be achieved it will become uneconomical to continue the boning operation at the plant.
3. The Company has had serious financial losses for the first 6 months of the year. Pig prices are 10p to 15p higher than our EU competitors.
4. The Company operates in a very competitive market. If it fails to keep costs down, and remain competitive, it will not survive.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds there is a considerable credibility gap between management and workers. It is imperative that both parties seek to address this as a matter of urgency and seek to create a climate where both parties can agree such changes as are necessary to ensure the security of employment in the Company and meet the highly competitive conditions of to-days marketplace.
The Court finds there is a reluctance to endeavour to achieve standards in excess of 100% performance as there is a perception that achieving such performances is likely to lead to a restudy of jobs and a consequent tightening of standard minute values (targets).
If this perception is to be overcome and workers reassured it should be clearly understood that achieving performance in excess of standard (100%) is not grounds for restudying the job.
Restudies should only take place where there is a change of methods, materials or equipment or there is agreement between management and workers. It is the view of the Court that the interests of all concerned might best be served by the introduction of a payment by output scheme. The Court recommends that the parties on acceptance and implementation of this recommendation discuss and seek to agree the introduction of such a scheme. The introduction of such a scheme does not necessitate the restudy of any of the jobs.
With a view to resolving the present dispute the Court makes the following recommendations :-
1.Standards- That the following standards apply.
7555 - 300
7559 - 203
7581 - 153
7580 - 180
These standards to be introduced on a phased basis over a period of five (5) weeks as follows:-
90% performance achieved in the 1st week a bonus of 100% to be paid.
Performances of 92.50%, 95% and 97.5% achieved in weeks 2,3 and 4
respectively to result in 100% bonus being paid.
Week 5 and thereafter bonus to be paid in accordance with performance
achieved.
2.Compensation for loss of earnings- Taking all of the circumstances of this dispute into account including the inordinate time some of the provisional standards were in place and in the interest of developing a climate of trust and goodwill the Court recommends that compensation for loss of earnings be paid in the following amounts:-
£300 per person to the shoulder boners and
£150 per person to the leg boners.
3.Heavy Weights- The Court notes the weights of trees of shoulders or legs are a matter of record. Further, the Court finds there is a perception that the issue of heavy weights when it arises is not being addressed seriously.
To deal with this issue the Court recommends that the parties put in place arrangements to monitor the weights and to apply allowances in the event of heavy weights.
The Court notes that allowances are made in respect of heavy weights in other plants in the Company. The Court recommends the parties seek to adopt the practices which apply in these plants and thus eliminate any difficulty which may arise.
In the event that there is disagreement regarding the arrangements to be put in place, the Court is prepared to review the situation and make a recommendation.
4.Specification 7351- The Court notes the present position in relation to the above specification. The Court recommends to the parties that they monitor the operation of this specification during the remainder of the lead - in period and address any difficulties which may arise affecting the achievement of standard performance.
The Court notes the commitments given by management in respect of the following:-
(a) Provisional Times - (Interim Targets)
(b) Alteration of boning standards
(c) Lead in times
(d) Removal of blockages on lines
(e) Difficulty with certain workers in achieving standard performance
on a consistent basis.
The Court puts forward this recommendation in an earnest endeavour to provide a reasonable basis for settlement of the current dispute.
Accordingly the Court requests that the parties recommend it to their constituents for acceptance.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
29th July, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.