FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBARRY SHOES LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Earnings where replacement operators are used as part of a team.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of shoes and is based in Ballinasloe. In 1996, following discussions between the Company and S.I.P.T.U., 'Modular' manufacturing was introduced into the Company. Currently there are six modules in operation. However, the operation of this system posed difficulties which could not be resolved at local level. The Union's concern is about a possible loss of earnings for the members of a team if a team member is absent and a replacement operator is used. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on 7th July, 1998. As agreement was not reached, 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 on 7th September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As adequate training is not provided, members of a team cannot cover satisfactorily for one another in all situations and some replacement operators are not sufficiently trained to maintain the earnings of the group.
2. Members of modules are often better off operating without a replacement in the case of one member being absent.
3. The Union wishes to establish the right of modules to work without a replacement except where absolutely necessary. If a replacement is used then the members of a group should not suffer a loss if they maintain their level of work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The module system is essential if the full manufacturing process is to be carried out at the plant.
2. Where replacement operators are used, the team can be re-assessed and new targets can be established.
3. If the Company concedes to the Union's demand, it would lead to abuse of the system and create greater difficulties in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the type of situation which could give rise to a loss of earning potential would only arise in circumstances in which there is a high rate of absenteeism, a replacement operator is necessary to maintain output levels, and the replacement operator's skill or experience is such as to impact adversely on overall performance of the module. A priority for both parties should be to reduce the incidents in which these factors occur. Where, due to factors outside of their control, the earnings of employees are reduced, a fair system should be put in place to assess appropriate compensation.
On that basis the Court recommends as follows:-
1. The parties should agree a joint initiative to reduce current levels of absenteeism.
2. The parties should work together to identify any skill gaps amongst replacement operators and any appropriate training necessary should be provided by the Company.
3. Where a replacement operator is introduced by the Company into a module in order to meet production requirements, the members of the module should be enabled to request an assessment of performance levels. The basis of such assessments should be agreed between specialists on both sides. The purpose of this assessment should be to enable the regular team members to generally maintain their earnings where their normal performance is maintained.
This arrangement should be jointly monitored on an ongoing basis and should be subject to an overall review after it has been in operation for six months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th September, 1998______________________
G.B./U.S.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.