Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD9423
Case Number: LCR14422
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: ODLUMS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning manning-levels in the "small packs" area.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the
oral evidence presented at the hearing concerning the introduction
of a new machine in the packing-area. In light of the arguments
put forward, the Court does not find grounds to recommend in
favour of the Union's claim that compensatory payments in respect
of the machine would be extended to workers outside of the
packing-area.
Within the packing-area, the Court recommends that compensation
should be as follows:-
The workers directly connected with the packing-area should
be paid a lump sum of #1,000. A pro-rata payment should be
made to other workers based on the time spent in the
packing-area during 1993.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9423 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14422
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ODLUMS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning manning-levels in the "small packs" area.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Odlums Group is involved in the flour and oatmeal
industry and employs approximately 150 workers in 3 mills
located in Dublin, Cork and Portarlington. The dispute arose
following the introduction of a fifth machine into the
packing-area in the Portarlington plant. In recognition of
the co-operation shown by the six workers directly employed
in the packing-area, the Company indicated that it was
prepared to pay them a once-off lump sum. The Union lodged a
claim for an increase in basic pay for the 28 workers
employed throughout the production-area. The basis for the
claim was that flexibility and interchangeability of workers
meant that any of the 28 could be required to operate the new
machine. The claim was rejected on the grounds that the
Company could not afford any cost increases. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 23rd of November,
1993, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court, on the 14th of January, 1994,
in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute, in
Portlaoise, on the 22nd of March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is expected that productivity will increase
substantially as a result of the operation of the new
machine. All other departments will contribute as well
as the "small packs" area.
2. It is unreasonable to eliminate the requirement for
overtime with no consequent recompense. Loss of
earnings to workers could amount to #80 per week in some
cases.
3. All workers in the plant will be affected by the
installation of the new machine, due to their full
flexibility and interchangeability. All workers will,
accordingly, contribute to the Company's gains.
4. Taking all factors into account, the most satisfactory
way to resolve the dispute would be through applying
increases to basic rates of pay. The Company's confined
offer is likely to cause great unrest amongst excluded
workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Portarlington mill is servicing a declining market
and it is in the interests of all involved that maximum
efficiency be achieved in its operation.
2. Within the declining market, the customer requires a
wider range of products and a wider range of product
pack-sizes. The Company's cost base is increased by the
necessity of meeting this customer requirement.
3. The Company cannot recover the increased costs from the
customer in the market place, especially in face of
competition from imports.
4. The Company's provision of the new machine will not
increase its throughput but will simply help to maintain
the cost base established during its rationalisation
programme.
5. A general pay-increase is neither appropriate nor
affordable by the Company and can be viewed as being
outside the terms of the P.E.S.P. and P.C.W. if
ratified. Such an increase would simply compound the
threat to the future of the Portarlington operation.
6. During the term of P.E.S.P., as part of the
rationalisation programme, the Company negotiated an
increase under Clause 3 and also introduced improvements
in the pension scheme and introduced a sick-pay scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the
oral evidence presented at the hearing concerning the introduction
of a new machine in the packing-area. In light of the arguments
put forward, the Court does not find grounds to recommend in
favour of the Union's claim that compensatory payments in respect
of the machine would be extended to workers outside of the
packing-area.
Within the packing-area, the Court recommends that compensation
should be as follows:-
The workers directly connected with the packing-area should
be paid a lump sum of #1,000. A pro-rata payment should be
made to other workers based on the time spent in the
packing-area during 1993.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th April, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
M.K./M.M. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.