Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93496
Case Number: LCR14196
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Manning levels in C Block.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the submissions made by the parties the Court
has come to the conclusion that the Company is not unreasonable in
implementing the manning levels as proposed.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the
Unions' claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93496 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14196
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Manning levels in C Block.
BACKGROUND:
2. For fitting cover purposes C Block is organised on the basis
of the making end (rolls area) and wrapping end. Traditionally
manning levels in C Block, (which makes flake and twirl bars) has
been determined by the number of rolls running at a given
time-viz. 1 fitter - 10 rolls, 2 fitters - 20 rolls. Up to
November, 1992 three fitters per shift were required as there was
an average of 22 rolls running. The requirement to produce twirl
ceased and the average number of rolls running was reduced to 15.
Management decided to redeploy one fitter per shift to the factory
support group. Subsequently, the Company moved a bagging machine
into C Block from A Block and the Union claimed that the extra
fitter per shift was required to look after this machinery, (thus
bringing the manning levels back to three fitters per shift).
Management rejected the Unions' claim. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference
was held on the 16th July, 1993. As no agreement was reached the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th August, 1993
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 10th September, 1993.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While the number of rolls was reduced to 15 the Company
introduced a new bagging machine with conveyer systems and 3m
box sealing machine. It is necessary to have a third fitter
on the production line to look after this extra equipment.
The Unions are not seeking to have extra fitters employed but
to retain the three fitters in C Block.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is sufficient capacity in the system for the bagging
machine to be covered without any increase in existing
numbers, particularly as the bagging machine was operated in A
Block without increased staff numbers.
2. It would cost the Company an extra #75,000 per annum to
retain an extra fitter per shift in C Block to cover the
bagging machine.
3. The Company must reserve the right to determine numbers
employed in any area depending on the needs of the business.
The Company's position in this respect was upheld by the Court
in relation to another group of workers in the plant (L.C.R.
12267 refers).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the submissions made by the parties the Court
has come to the conclusion that the Company is not unreasonable in
implementing the manning levels as proposed.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the
Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
23rd September, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.