Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Multinational Manufacturing Company

Representatives

Tom Fitzgerald Unite the Union

John Brennan Ibec West

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00018053-001

20/03/2018

This dispute, referred under the Industrial Relations Act (1969), relates to the daily operation of an Automover on one of the production lines at the Respondent's manufacturing facility.

The Complainant alleges that the Automover Cycle Time has been changed from a 30 second cycle to an 18 second cycle. The Complainant alleges that, as a result, bench work, required to be done in that 30 second slot, should be changed to 18 seconds in accordance with the time it takes the Automover to complete the cycle.

When the Respondent, who is a member of an international manufacturing organisation, commenced manufacturing in the mid-70s, units were physically pushed by production operators from one workstation to the next along the production line.

In 2008, the Respondent designed a system for moving the units using a hydraulic ram. The Automover, which operated over ground, had a ram with a return stroke which allowed it to return to its original position when the movement was complete. At that point in time, the Respondent was producing 48 units per day.

In 2012, the Respondent installed an underground version of the Automover System. The Primary objective of this installation was to provide a safer working environment for the production operators, given that the previous version operated over ground and carried potential health and safety risks for production operators.

The assembly instruction for each production operator on the assembly line is set down in a document referred to as the Sequence of Events (SOE). This document detail the list of work steps to be completed on the unit by each operator. When the Automover was introduced in 2008, it was established that it took 30 seconds to complete a cycle during this time a production operator was expected to stand back from the unit. This 30 seconds, which was referred to as "stand back time", was incorporated into the SOE. Subsequently, the production operators were allocated a certain amount of bench work to be completed within this 30 second period.

Currently, the shift pattern on the production line is 8 hours per day to build 80 units. This equates to 480/80 (minutes/units) or 6 minutes per SOE/cycle. The production operators are expected to carry out their work at 87.5% of the British Standard Institution Scale.

The Complainant's Trade Union Representative presented a detailed submission, containing significant technical data, in support of the Complainant's claim. It is not necessary to detail all of the Complainant's submission, particularly the technical input. However, what follows is a condensed version of the submission made.

The submission stated that, with the Automover now completing its cycle in 18 seconds instead of the original 30 seconds, during which the production operators have to complete 30 seconds of bench work, they now have only 5.6125 minutes to complete each unit. Consequently, it is claimed that the rate of work has increased from the 87.5% to 93.54% of BSI.

It is further claimed that the 12 seconds (being the difference between the original 30 seconds and the new 18 seconds) has effectively been appropriated by the Respondent. It is also submitted that, at the current output of 80 units per day, this appropriated time amounts to 16 minutes per day. According to the Complainant’s Trade Union Representative, this time is being used as a "buffer" by the Respondent to guarantee that the output of 80 units per day would be achieved.

In conclusion, it is submitted that the Complainant (and other colleagues who were also impacted in a similar manner) would like the 18 seconds per unit returned to the production operators. According to their submission, the only acceptable manner in which this can be achieved is to program the Automover to commence its cycle in 5.5 minutes instead of the current 5.3 minutes, as this would give the operator 5.8 minutes to complete each unit, while fulfilling the in-house agreement in relation to morning tea break.

The Respondent presented a detailed and comprehensive submission, which was supported by significant technical information. Once again, I do not consider it necessary to present all of the detailed technical submission. Consequently, the following is presented as a summary of the Respondent's arguments in reply to the claim being made by the Complainant.

The Respondent stated that, with the implementation of the Underground Automover System and the safety improvements made, employees are no longer required to stand back when the unit is moving. However, the Respondent stated that employees are never given work in excess of the six minutes per SOE/cycle time. The Respondent stated, in addition, that the SOE/cycle time also includes an 11% rest allowance.

The Respondent stated that employees are expected to work no more or no less than the 87.5 % of the BSI Scale throughout the normal work day. The 11% rest allowances are allocated to all production operators on the SOE as per the Union/Management agreement.

The Respondent also strongly rejected the Complainant’s claim that they (the Respondent) were currently gaining 16 minutes per day, which is equivalent to 3 units per day or 15 units per week, because the Automover cycle is set at 5.3 minutes. The Respondent stated that they do not produce any additional units per day and, on occasion, the full rate is not achieved. In this regard, the Respondent stated that they are honouring their agreements as set out in the Union/Management agreement.

The Respondent further stated that they have a number of “Floaters” who can cover workstations when operators need to take environmental breaks and/or to attend other scheduled meetings or appointments. The Respondent also stated that the Engineering Team continue to meet with the Union Committee on a regular basis to discuss improvements to the Automover and the timing processes.

In conclusion, the Respondent stated that, completing a six minute cycle on the production line comprises of 5 minutes 24 seconds at 87.5% of the BSI Scale. It is stated that the Automover static time is 5 minutes 19 seconds plus a minimum move time of 19 seconds, which makes a total of 5 minutes 38 seconds. The Respondent pointed out that the Union Management Agreement states that employees are expected to perform at a minimum of 87.5% of BSI throughout the normal working day. Therefore, it was submitted by the Respondent that with a minimum Automover total cycle time of 5 minutes 38 seconds, there is no requirement to work at a rate above 87.5% BSI.

Preliminary Issue:

Before considering the substantive element of the Complainant's claim, it was necessary to consider whether or not I had the appropriate jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, states as follows:

"Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to an Adjudication Officer".

While the claim was lodged in the name of a single complainant, the detail on the complaint form indicated that the Complainant and two other colleagues were party to the claim/grievance. In addition, it emerged at the Hearing that any recommendation made in relation to this complaint may have implications for a number of employees other than the Complainant and his two colleagues.

Given that the complaint clearly relates to a "body of workers" and that it concerns "times of work", it could be concluded that a strict application of Section 13 (2) of the Act, as set out above, would preclude me from hearing this claim.

However, I note that the matter at issue has been taken through the normal in-house industrial relations processes without a satisfactory resolution being achieved. Consequently, the employees involved, through their Trade Union Representative, felt that referral to the WRC Adjudication Service was the most appropriate step to take, following failure to have the matter resolved in-house. It is also clear that both parties to this dispute are anxious to have the matter resolved and are seeking a recommendation at adjudication in order to achieve that resolution.

Consequently, taking all of the above into consideration, I am satisfied that, in an IR context, it would be unreasonable and unhelpful to apply a strict interpretation of Section 13 (2) of the Act. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to give careful consideration to the dispute, as presented, and to issue a recommendation which hopefully will assist the parties in reaching resolution of their dispute.

Substantive Issue:

This is clearly a very technical and complex industrial engineering issue. The submissions made on behalf of the Complainant clearly suggest they believe they are currently working at 93.54% of the BSI Scale, when the rate set out in the Union/Management collective agreement, covering this issue, is 87.5% BSI. In this regard, the Complainants stated in submission that, while reverting to the 87.5% might not be achievable, there are strongly of the view that a rate of 93.54% is unreasonable.

For their part, the Respondent is adamant that, when the average move time of the Automover, over the course of the shift, is taken into consideration there is never a requirement on production operatives to work above the 87.5% rating.

Clearly, both sides are presenting different sets of data and each is equally convinced as to the validity/credibility of their respective readings of the situation. It would be normal, when considering an industrial relations dispute, that an Adjudication Officer might recommend an appropriate compromise position at a point within the established gap between the parties’ positions. However, given the highly technical nature of the matter in dispute, I feel it would be inappropriate and potentially damaging to the positions of either or both parties and to the manufacturing process itself, were I to adopt such an arbitrary approach.

During the course of the Hearing, it became evident that there had never actually been a sharing, with the work group, of the technical data underpinning the Respondent's position. The Complainant stated that they had been seeking this information for some time but had not been provided with it.

The Respondent stated that they had no difficulty in sharing this information but were encountering difficulty in collecting and collating the data in a meaningful manner which might assist or facilitate meaningful consultation with the employees on the matter. However, the Respondent stated that it expected to resolve these issues and to be in a position to share the data with the employees concerned within a number of weeks.

Against that background, I am satisfied that the most appropriate and potentially most beneficial next steps in resolving this dispute would be for a sharing of the Respondent's information/data with the employees, in a manner that would allow for meaningful consultation between the parties with a view to reconciling the exact position in relation to the timings/working rates.

In the event that, following the sharing and consideration of the data, disagreement still exists in relation to the validity or acceptability of the data as presented by the Respondent, I would then suggest that the most appropriate manner for dealing with this ongoing disagreement would be to engage the services of an independent, external expert in industrial engineering matters of this nature. It would be important that, should the services of this expert be required, their selection would be on an agreed basis. In this regard, I note the Respondent’s willingness to source such an expert from outside this jurisdiction, in the event that an appropriately qualified and independent expert was not available in this country.

Having carefully considered all of the evidence adduced and based on the considerations/findings as detailed above, I recommend that the Respondent complete their collation of the appropriate data at the earliest possible time and share this with the employees concerned through the normal IR channels. There should then follow a period of consultation between the parties with a view to reconciling the current dispute relating to timings/working rates, to the extent that it resolves the current dispute.

However, in the event those consultations do not achieve the necessary agreement in relation to the data, then I recommend the engagement of an agreed, external expert who can provide the necessary clarification by way of an independent, objective analysis of the situation.

Industrial Relations Act 1969

Productivity

BSI Standards