Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD96148 Case Number: LCR15161 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning (i) Manning levels, (ii) Shift working in Warehouse, (iii) Job enrichment.
Recommendation:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties,
the Court finds as follows in each of the areas in dispute:-
1. Spinning Department:
The Court believes that the number of 17 operatives, as
recommended, is reasonable, taking into account all the
information before the Court. However, the Court
accepts that in certain circumstances additional
resources may be required and recommends that the
parties meet to agree how this will be covered.
2. Finishing Department:
The Court accepts that the number proposed, 17, is
reasonable and notes the Company assurance in relation
to a possible further study following the upgrading of
Line A Finishing, in August, 1996.
3. Sorting and Preparation Department:
The Court is not in a position to adjudicate on the
issue of safety in this area, but would recommend that
the NIFAST Consultants be brought back to discuss, with
both parties, the issues raised by the employees.
4. Warehousing Department:
The Court recommends that the Company proposals to
reduce the number on shifts from 9 to 8 be accepted by
the employees.
5. Job Enrichment:
When the 2nd phase payment is due for implementation, if
some employees have not reached the standard then there
should be discussions between the parties concerning how
this can be addressed.
6. Compensation:
The parties to agree an appropriate rate of compensation
for loss of earnings. If they fail to agree, the Court
will make a recommendation.
7. Other Issues:
Subject to agreement, further discussions should take
place between the parties on Sick-pay, Pensions,
Service/Holiday pay.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD96148 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15161
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning
(i) Manning levels,
(ii) Shift working in Warehouse,
(iii) Job enrichment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Mullagh, Kells, Co. Meath, and has
been in existence for almost 24 years, employing
approximately 460 in the production of nylon and polyester
fibre for the international market-place. The Company has
recently invested about £5 million in new equipment and
systems in order to increase capacity and throughput, thereby
absorbing surplus manpower and avoiding redundancies.
However, the new equipment has not been brought into use as
agreement has not been reached with the Union on a number of
issues, as follows:
Manning levels in the Spinning and Finishing
departments:
1. At present, manning-levels in Spinning are 20 per shift
(4 shifts) and the proposed manning is 17 per shift. In
Finishing, at present, there are 2 shifts with 21
operatives and 2 shifts with 14, per shift (total 70).
The proposal is for 17 per shift (total 68). The Union
regards the proposed manning levels as inadequate.
Re-organisation of the Warehouse:
2. Part of the Company's plan involves the transfer of some
of the warehouse staff to the Sorting and Preparation
Department. Work in the warehouse is a day-job but 9
staff working there at present will be required to
transfer to other departments and to work shift. A
number of these do not wish to work shift and the
Union's position that it is not reasonable to expect
them to do so. An additional problem is that the staff
in the Sorting and Preparation Department will be
required to work through their breaks in order to
provide for continuous running. To facilitate this, it
is proposed to reduce manning during breaks from 3 to 2.
This is unacceptable to the Union on grounds of safety.
The Company claims that there are no additional hazards,
as assessed by the health and safety consultant from
NIFAST.
Job-enrichment:
3. A joint assessment of Company proposals for Job-
enrichment was carried out by the Irish Productivity
Centre (IPC) and the Union's Industrial Engineer. The
proposals provide for improvements in quality, customer
satisfaction, safety and environmental considerations,
with some consequent changes in job content and
responsibility. The assessors recommended two phased
pay increases, amounting to 15% of the differential
between basic pay and grade 4 pay (which represents an
increase of £18.10 per week for shift workers and
approximately half that for day workers). The first
increase was for acceptance of, and participation, in
the programme and the second increase was to be paid on
an individual basis subject to department-wide
skill-levels having been achieved. The Union accepted
the job-enrichment programme in principal but sought a
substantial increase in the payments together with their
non-conditional application to all staff.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences
under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission at
which progress towards a negotiated settlement was minimal.
The Company indicated that it would consider reducing the
number of workers being placed on shift from 9 to 8. The
Union indicated that difficulties would remain as long as
workers were being placed on shift compulsorily. The Union
also raised a number of areas where it sought improvements in
conditions (Service pay, Service holidays, Pension, Sick-pay)
along with the increase in the job-enrichment payments. The
Union also claimed that many workers would lose substantial
amounts in overtime earnings as a result of some of the
proposed changes.
The Company stated that it would look at the Pension and
Sick-pay issues, without commitment, but it did not consider
that any of the other points had merit; the job-enrichment
payments had been endorsed by the Union's own expert and it
was not the Company's intention to increase them; the
question of loss of earnings would be addressed by
compensation; the changes in manning in the different
departments were all necessary, and justified by independent
examinations.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of
April, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 19th of April, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. MANNING LEVELS:
Spinning Department
1. The manning levels proposed by the IPC on "Quench",
"Extrusion" and "Take-up" may not take into account
fully the Health and Safety considerations, including
extremes of heat during warm weather, and the best
utilisation of machinery on each floor.
2. There should be 8 people instead of the proposed 6 on
Take-Up primarily from a point of view of safety. It is
only a matter of a few years since the Company was
issuing written warnings to workers who were observed
operating the Take-up on their own. While there has
been some innovation of a technical nature in this area,
it does not alleviate the inherent dangers in this
particular work area. It should be noted that an
additional 12,000 tonnes will go through the plant as a
result of changes under consideration at present. This
will lead to the generation of at least £1.5 million in
additional profit for the Company. The existing
staffing levels and the staffing levels proposed by the
IPC include working breaks on reduced numbers. In other
words, there are additional personnel drafted in for
breaks, which consist of an hour and a half for each
12-hour shift. This provision further exacerbates the
staffing deficiency on each floor.
Finishing Department:
3. The study by the IPC mentions that there were occasions
when additional staffing over and above the recommended
17 would be required. The Company has been asked to
indicate when and how such additional personnel will be
provided. The Company has refused to do that, stating
that it is at management's discretion as to when and how
additional staff will be provided. This is not an
appropriate way in which a matter so basic to an
agreement of this nature should be handled.
A contentious area in relation to how staff are
perceived to be working is what is termed "present but
inactive" periods. This means that operatives will sit
or stand and observe the equipment and material passing
through without having to become manually involved.
This is an essential part of their duties in that they
are observing and noting the operation of the equipment,
and accordingly, they are being productive.
4. The 'Sort and Prep' area, sees an influx of staff from
other Departments and the operation of four lines on a
shift system. The Company requires that there will be
staggered breaks as per the practice in other
Departments. The workers in this area consider that
there are substantial health and safety risks involved
in operating guillotines and similar equipment which
separate and chop raw material. The dispute, in this
instance, relates to the provision of Relief Operatives
to the lines during breaks. Non-line operations could
be discontinued to facilitate provision of cover on each
line. The Company has refused to consider this option.
The Company has argued that, as staff in other
Departments such as the Finishing Department or Spinning
can relieve each other during breaks, this principle can
apply in Sort and Prep as well. The is an example of
the inflexible attitude adopted by the Company.
Warehousing:
5. The 22 workers in the Warehouse have been on day
working, for over 20 years in some cases, and are now
faced with a situation where 10 of them have to switch
to shift working. There is also the problem of loss of
earnings involved for those remaining on day working.
There are other issues outstanding (details supplied to
the Court) on which the workers have advanced various
alternative proposals. These have been rejected by the
Company which does not appear to appreciate the impact
which the implementation of its proposals will have on
the workers and their families.
Job-enrichment:
6. The proposal from the IPC, and the Union's Industrial
Engineer provides for widespread training on all
functions within each Department. Co-operation with
such cross training does not pose a problem for the
workers generally. However, there would be a
considerable problem if, having co-operated with such
cross-training, there was not a universal application of
the two increases.
The Union has advised the Company that 100% commitment
will be given to facilitate and co-operate with all
training as specified in the Job-enrichment proposal on
foot of a commitment to make a two-phased payment into a
single-phased payment at the start of this Agreement.
The Company has once again refused to consider such an
arrangement, yet it claims that it is reasonable to
expect that virtually all operatives will obtain the
necessary standard of efficiency and competence that
will justify making the full payment as proposed by the
Report.
7. As can be seen from the proposals from both IPC and the
Company itself, there are no elements of compensation
relating to increased production or co-operation with
on-going change. Therefore, the Union has listed the
matters already stated previously as being central to an
Agreement of this nature. Those matters are Service
pay, Service holidays and an improvement in the Sick-pay
and Pension scheme to reflect the current service and
age of the membership of SIPTU in the Company.
The Company's response has been to ask an Actuary to
assess the cost of introducing an early retirement
arrangement. There has been no commitment by the
Company to actually introduce an early retirement age.
The Company hinted at the prospect of improving the
Service Pay without indicating exactly what they would
do in this regard. Service holidays for other sections
of the staff are well ahead of SIPTU members'
entitlements and in the context of this restructuring
programme, the latter are entitled to be brought on a
par with these other grades. The claim for an
improvement in the Sick-pay scheme has been before the
Company for nearly a year now and no worthwhile effort
has been made to meet the worker's aspirations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
Manning Levels:
4. 1. The Company does not see any reason for increases in the
proposed manning levels particularly in view of the fact
that this matter has been debated at length for a period
of almost two years. The Company, the IPC and SIPTU's
own Industrial Engineer have also carried out
comprehensive studies, and have put forward proposals in
this regard. On this basis the proposed manning levels
for the Spinning, Finishing and Warehouse Departments
should be accepted by the Union, as being fair and
reasonable under the circumstances.
Job-Enrichment:
2. The Company initiated the concept of Job-enrichment for
the purpose of enhancing employee involvement,
responsibility and team working. The Company has
accepted the joint proposal from the IPC and SIPTU
Industrial Engineer, which provides for two increases of
of 15% of Job Grades Rates. The proposed 2nd Phase has
been structured in such a way that it is not appropriate
to pay for this phase before the additional skills have
been acquired.
3. It is, however, regrettable to record the inflexibility
of the Union in regard to their recent refusal to
operate a different set of 12 Extruders to facilitate
customer requirements for specialised products. The
consequences of this type of action has resulted in a
serious loss in sales, and is bound to have a damaging
effect on the future of the Company's business.
Sick-pay and Pension schemes:
4. The Company has indicated its willingness to improve the
existing Sick-pay plan, to a scheme which will operate
on a personal basis. It is envisaged that this can only
take place with the implementation of an automated Time
and Attendance System. The Company will implement this
improvement following significant co-operation from the
Union in regard to other matters, as outlined.
Regarding the Pension scheme (details supplied to the
Court) the Union has no grounds to justify any
improvement in this scheme, which is in the "Upper
Quartile" of Pension plans for industrial workers as
verified by the Irish Pensions Trust (details supplied).
Service Pay/Service Holidays:
5. There is no justification for the Union's claim for
improvements in regard to both the Service pay and
Service holiday schemes. There may, however, be some
scope for an extension of the Service pay scheme,
conditional upon an overall package being agreed. The
Company is not prepared to make any further concessions
in regard to Service holidays.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties,
the Court finds as follows in each of the areas in dispute:-
1. Spinning Department:
The Court believes that the number of 17 operatives, as
recommended, is reasonable, taking into account all the
information before the Court. However, the Court
accepts that in certain circumstances additional
resources may be required and recommends that the
parties meet to agree how this will be covered.
2. Finishing Department:
The Court accepts that the number proposed, 17, is
reasonable and notes the Company assurance in relation
to a possible further study following the upgrading of
Line A Finishing, in August, 1996.
3. Sorting and Preparation Department:
The Court is not in a position to adjudicate on the
issue of safety in this area, but would recommend that
the NIFAST Consultants be brought back to discuss, with
both parties, the issues raised by the employees.
4. Warehousing Department:
The Court recommends that the Company proposals to
reduce the number on shifts from 9 to 8 be accepted by
the employees.
5. Job Enrichment:
When the 2nd phase payment is due for implementation, if
some employees have not reached the standard then there
should be discussions between the parties concerning how
this can be addressed.
6. Compensation:
The parties to agree an appropriate rate of compensation
for loss of earnings. If they fail to agree, the Court
will make a recommendation.
7. Other Issues:
Subject to agreement, further discussions should take
place between the parties on Sick-pay, Pensions,
Service/Holiday pay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th May, 1996 Finbarr Flood
M.K./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.