FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAKOTA PACKAGING (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION PRINTING TRADES BRANCH WOMENS WORKERS BRANCH DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Dispute concerning work practices.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures high quality cartons for the software and pharmaceutical industries and employs 143 workers. The dispute relates to the breaking out (and loading) of cartons which are then fed to glueing machines. This involves breaking apart bundles of cardboard which are joined together before feeding them to the machines. In the past many of the Company's contracts also involved the stripping and pulling out of internal waste. This was done by the Printing Trades Branch (PTB) workers who also broke up the bundles. Some contracts did not involve any internal stripping of waste and in those cases the Womens Workers Branch (WWB) members did the breaking apart. There has been an increase in the number of jobs where no internal waste stripping is required. The Company maintains that any breaking up to be done in such cases is a simple operation and should be done by the person feeding the machine i.e. the WWB members. The PTB maintains that breaking out work is proper to PTB members. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held on 25th February and 13th March 1997. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 4th April, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd June, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
(P.T.B.)
3. 1. An agreement was negotiated in May, 1996 which allowed for flexibility between the PTB and the WWB to cover for each other if required to avoid the need to recruit casuals in either area. The Company now seeks to change that agreement. The Company's requirement goes far beyond what was originally sought in that it includes demanning.
2. The workers are prepared to discuss the issue if the Company is prepared to pay appropriate compensation in respect of the changes sought.
3. In the 1996 Agreement, while flexibility was conceded equally by both branches the PTB members received no payment.
4. The workers concerned are opposed to any attempt to take away their traditional work load. Other departments have secured increases and the members concerned are entitled to compensation.
(W.W.B.)
1. The 1996 Agreement is a defined flexibility one whereby flexibility would take place between both branches of the Union. The Company achieved substantial savings which increased its competitiveness and for which members received a 4% increase. In light of the members agreement to carry out the task of 'breaking out' (up to 80%) the Company will achieve further savings equal to and possibly greater than those achieved in 1996. The Branch is claiming an increase in return for their extension of the flexibility agreement to carry out this function on a permanent basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Because of changes in technology, the Company has managed to eliminate the internal waste that binds cartons together. Therefore, the participation of PTB members in the operation is confined to perimeter waste only. In the past jobs have been manufactured without internal waste and have gone straight through to WWB members.
2. The PTB wishes to take out any internal waste where it exists and where there is none, it insists on breaking the cartons apart on one pallet and putting them onto another pallet. New machines and processes have eliminated the need for heavy manual input. The technology of producing cartons now is such that, after they have been cut and creased, only minimal effort is needed to break the cartons apart.
3. With regard to cartons which contain no internal waste, the Company have had this operation examined by an Industrial Engineer. The conclusions are that it warrants no element of compensation. There is no additional hardship/or productivity since cartons virtually fall apart themselves. To operate the way the Branches want would involve double handling it, is counter productive and is a waste of time. The Company is agreeable to the process being examined by the Union's Industrial Engineer.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court, noting the Company's statement at the hearing with regard to maintaining the number of jobs, recommends that the Union agree to the Company's proposals as to the proposed new work practices.
In addition the Court notes the Company's willingness to allow the Union's Industrial Engineer to examine and assess the new practices. In the view of the Court the Union should pursue this course.
On the evidence presented the Court does not recommend in favour of the claim for an increase.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
27th June, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.