LCR15654

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/97/360 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15654 (CC97/675) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHOWERINGS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu

SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Line 1 production.




BACKGROUND:

2. The Company is involved in the processing, manufacturing and bottling of ciders, perries, fruit juices and soft drinks at its Clonmel plant.

As part of its ongoing investment programme the Company replaced some machinery on Line 1, in March, 1997.

The Union side served a claim on the Company for monetary compensation in respect of increased production. The Company rejected the claim. At the Unions' request, the Company maintained the existing production levels.

The matter was, subsequently, the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 3rd of July, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 17th of September, 1997.





COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:


3. 1. Replacement of equipment/machinery is necessary to maintain the business and long established custom and practice supports the Company's position in this case.

2. There is no 'new technology' or 'productivity' involved. Line 1 is machine-driven and the changes place no extra demand on employees.

3. The claim is outside the terms of custom and practice, and Partnership 2000.

4. The restriction on the operation of the line is unofficial industrial action outside the terms of the Company/trade union agreements and Partnership 2000.

5. The Company has given undertakings that any extra manning requirements arising from the new set-up will be dealt with and that, in the event of Board approval for major investment on Line 1, discussions with employee representatives will take place 6 months in advance of the operational date.



UNION ARGUMENTS:


4. 1. The implementation of the new bottle washer will mean an increase of one third in production on the Line 1 filler. This change in work practices was implemented without proper discussions, information or agreement.

2. The Company's attitude is that it has never paid for change and will not do so now.

3. The Company has refused the Union's request for its industrial engineer to carry out a study of the new technology. Accordingly, the Union is not in a position to quantify its claim.

4. In this era of partnership, attitudes such as the Company's should not exist as they are not in the interests of good industrial relations.

5. The Company should provide a comprehensive document outlining in detail its plans regarding future development. The document should be open and comprehensive in order to allay the concerns of the workforce.





RECOMMENDATION:

Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is satisfied that the Company's position is not unreasonable based on past custom and practice. The Court, accordingly, recommends that the Unions agree to work the new machinery at the proper speed. Recognising the Unions' concerns, the Court further recommends that after 3 months of operation, if the Union still require it, the Company agree that the Unions' Industrial Engineer, in conjunction with the Company's Production Manager, carry out an assessment of the impact on the workers.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Evelyn Owens
1st of October, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.