FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION BAKERS FOOD WORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Breaks pattern.
BACKGROUND:
2. Irish Biscuits Limited is an operating subsidiary of the Danone Group. Its main business is the manufacture and sales of a range of biscuit products under the "Jacobs" and "Bolands" label. It employs 570 full-time and 200 seasonal employees mainly at its Tallaght Factory and 32 within Northern Ireland.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions' claim on behalf of 18 workers in relation to the break pattern to apply in the mixing department. In 1997, the Company/Unions entered into an agreement "Securing the Future" which changed the normal working arrangement from a 39 hour week to annualised hours. Under the agreement a break pattern of 1 in 3 was agreed. This arrangement came into place on the 30th of June, 1997 and operated for a number of days. A dispute arose when the operators in the mixing department maintained that the 3 break pattern could not be done and the operation reverted back to a 2 break pattern.
Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 15th of June, 1998. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st of August, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to balloting on the Company's proposals, management agreed to the Unions request to meet the staff of the mixing department to apprise them of the new break arrangements. Management failed to meet the staff involved.
2. Due to the nature of work carried out in the mixing department, no comparison can be made with other areas of the operation. The work in the mixing department is more manual than in other sections, i.e., wagons to be pulled and moved into place and moved from mixers to the machines, large amounts of dough to be recycled and there are many other problems in respect of the line system which make it impossible to compare the mixing loft favourably with the other departments.
3. There are seven mixers in the mixing department, the number 7 is employed on a seasonal basis. The Union has proposed that seven mixers operate all year round so as to provide three reliefs to cover all breaks, as applied elsewhere in the Company. When six mixers operate, three reliefs should cover all breaks, plus the grinding and any other jobs in the area. This proposal, if applied, would enable management to nominate a person to the grinder to compensate for all occasions when he/she would be employed elsewhere.
4. The operation of the 1 in 3 break pattern would lead to continuous dissatisfaction and downtime on the mixers, thereby affecting the efficiency of the section. Management has been providing cover for a period of 15 months and the Unions believe its proposal to be a genuine attempt to resolve what has been a very acrimonious dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Staffing in the mixing department was increased from 21 to 26 as part of the "Securing the Future" changes around a base level of 6 plants on the early shift and 4 plants on the late shift, with extra staff being provided when the seventh plant operated seasonally.
In order to solve the current situation regarding the break system the Company is prepared to modify its agreed position as follows:-
Day Shift - Mezzanine floor operative to do 1 break - fig jam.
- 2 relief staff to do 3 breaks each when there is 6
mixing plants on.
- 2 relief staff plus grinding person (for 1 break) to do
breaks when 7 mixing plants on.
Late Shift - As originally proposed i.e.,
- Mezzanine floor person to relief no 6 mixer
and fig jam
- Relief person to do 3 breaks.
In the case where absence is high and the grinding and spare person are available, it would be expected that the day shift would operate as originally agreed between the Company and the Unions.
2. The Company contends that its proposal is a workable solution and failing that would contend that an in-depth work study by an independent third party be employed to bring the matter to conclusion as the cost which has been incurred to date cannot be allowed to continue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is not in a position to decide on the relative merits of the arguments presented on this issue, given the lack of clear reasons for objecting to the Company proposal.
The Court having considered the information supplied recommends that one of the following options be implemented:-
(A) The Company proposals, modified by inclusion of Appendix (A) in the Company submission, be implemented on a 3 months trial basis. The situation to be reviewed by an independent third party at that stage, if required.
OR
(B) A feasibility study to be undertaken by an agreed independent third party, on the acceptance of both sides that the findings would be binding on the parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
27th October, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.