LCR10889

Subject:
Claims relating to: (a) the duration of the probationary period for new staff, (b) rates of pay for two machinists and one cutter, (c) rates of pay for part-time employees.

Recommendation:
12. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
recommends as follows:

.Probationary period

The Court recommends that the probationary period for
non-management personnel be reduced to four months.

.Machinists and Cutters

The Court recommends that these workers be granted a
differential of 5% of their existing rate in respect of
hours worked at these particular tasks.

.Pay rates - Temporary night workers.

The Court is of the opinion that the Company's
proposals in respect of these workers are reasonable
and recommends that they be accepted.

Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD86824 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10889
CC861060 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10889

Parties: TEX PRINT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)

and

IRISH PRINT UNION

Subject:

1. Claims relating to:

(a) the duration of the probationary period for new staff,

(b) rates of pay for two machinists and one cutter,

(c) rates of pay for part-time employees.

Background:

2. In February, 1985, the Company was notified by the Union that
it had organised various categories of the production staff. This
was followed by a period of negotiation on both a procedural
agreement and pay and conditions which eventually resulted in the
conclusion of a wage agreement in May, 1985. The matter of the
length of the probationary period for new staff could not be
agreed at local level (this was part of the procedural agreement).
Wage increases under the 26th round were paid in January and July,
1986. The Union claimed a differential for the machinists and
cutters on the grounds that their jobs carry greater skill and
responsibility. The Company rejected this claim as it did the
claim for an increase in the pay rates of temporary employees. On

the 20th June, 1986, the Union referred claim (a) to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court and a conciliation
conference was held on the 29th July, which failed to resolve the
issue and on the 23rd October, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. Claims (b) and
(c) were referred to conciliation on the 3rd September but a
conciliation conference held on the 29th September, failed to
resolve these issues also and on the 21st November they were
referred to the Labour Court. A Court hearing to investigate all
three matters was held on the 24th November, 1986.

Claim (a) - probationary period

Background:

3. The Company is proposing a probationary period of six months
while the Union considers three months to be adequate.

Union's arguments:

4. (a) It is the Union's view that three months is a more than
adequate period of time to assess a person, considering
the nature of the work involved. Three months
represents a compromise as far as the Union is
concerned as it believes six weeks to be sufficient.

(b) The probationary period puts severe pressure on
employees and the Union's experience in the Company
shows that pressure to be considerable (one employee
had to leave because she could not cope with it). In
the printing industry generally, the period is only six
weeks and this is on occasions to judge highly skilled
operatives.

(c) If the Union's claim is conceded it would be prepared
to consider any problem that the Company feels it may
present and an arrangement in special cases for an
extension could be agreed.

Company's argument:

5. (i) The Company is of the view that its insistence on a six
month probationary period is more accurately
representative of industrial norms than the Union's
case for a three month period. It does not believe
that a six month period in any way disadvantages the
individual prospective employee. The longer time
allows the Company to make a more reasoned decision
which is ultimately in the better interest of both the
employee and the Company.

Claim (b) - pay rates for machinists and cutters

Background:

6. The Union is claiming a differential for the three employees
concerned on the basis that their jobs carry greater skill and
responsibility.

Union's arguments:

7. (a) The original negotiations on pay rates proved
exceedingly difficult because of the low wages at the
time and because of the various individual arrangements
existing between staff members and the Company. The
Union recognised that it was not possible to achieve
everything at that particular time. The time since
then has demonstrated that an anomaly exists with

regard to these workers. They are paid the same rate
as general workers although they have and use
additional skills. Indeed there are general workers
who are paid extra because they perform additional
duties. The skills the claimants have gained over the
years are worthy of recognition. They were employed
specifically for their trades as nobody else in the
factory could perform them and the Union believes that
a 10% differential is warranted in this case.

Company's arguments:

8. (i) The claimants' current rates of pay were struck in May,
1985, and have a clear relationship with all other pay
rates within the Company. It was specifically agreed
that employees would continue to perform work as
previously. The Company accepts that pay relationships
are not immutable but before these are disturbed, with
all the consequences possible from that, there should
be substantive change in the content of the work
relationship or in the content of individual jobs. No
such change has occurred.

(ii) Another possible justification for changing pay rates
is the existence of a serious anomaly with comparable
jobs in other employments. The Company is satisfied
that no such argument can be presented.

Claim (c) - pay rates for part-time employees

Background:

9. The Union is claiming equal pay and conditions for the
part-timers with the full-time staff.

Union's arguments:

10. (a) These employees are all general workers and are usually
employed from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Their rate of pay is
#1.74 per hour compared with #3.19 per hour enjoyed by
the full-time general operatives. Their work is
identical and there is no justification whatsoever for
a difference in rates. The Company's claim that
bringing the rates into line could be construed as
discriminatory by the permanent staff is nonsense.
This claim has the backing of the total staff.

(b) All workers employed part-time are adult and have many
years' experience of employment. Furthermore there is
absolutely no job security as they do not receive any
guarantee of further employment when their term of
engagement (normally six months) is ended. As the
claim was served well before their most recent term
finished, compensation is sought back to then.

Company's arguments:

11. (i) In order to acknowledge some validity to the argument
that these workers are not comparable in all respects
with day workers and therefore should be in receipt of
a different pay structure, the Company agreed at
conciliation to place the existing temporaries on the
third point of the incremental scale (new recruits
would be placed on the second point) and to credit them
with an additional point on the scale for each
additional year that they work with the Company. A
year in this case is taken to mean three months. The

Company believes that this is an honest attempt to meet
the Union's claim. However, this was rejected by the
Union and has subsequently been withdrawn.

(ii) It should be noted that there are no temporary people
employed in the Company at the moment.

RECOMMENDATION:

12. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
recommends as follows:

.Probationary period

The Court recommends that the probationary period for
non-management personnel be reduced to four months.

.Machinists and Cutters

The Court recommends that these workers be granted a
differential of 5% of their existing rate in respect of
hours worked at these particular tasks.

.Pay rates - Temporary night workers.

The Court is of the opinion that the Company's
proposals in respect of these workers are reasonable
and recommends that they be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
19th December, 1986
D.H./J.C.