Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86657 Case Number: LCR10816 Section / Act: S67 Parties: R.T.E. - and - ITGWU |
Claim for an increase in pay for the operation of a new machine.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the introduction of the new
equipment in question clearly comes within the terms of the 1981
and 1984 agreements and accordingly does not recommend concession
of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86657 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10816
CC861216 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10816
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for an increase in pay for the operation of a new
machine.
Background:
2. This claim concerns five printing assistants employed by the
Company in its Print Unit at Donnybrook. In early 1986 the
Company introduced a new double headed machine into the Print
Unit. By using the new machine it is possible to print two
colours in one run whereas existing machines require two runs. In
June, 1986, the Union claimed an increase in pay on the basis of
the introduction of the new machine. The Union later quantified
its claim as being for a #15 per week pay increase. The Company
rejected the claim. No agreement was reached through local
negotiations and on 17th July, 1986, the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 6th August, 1986. However no agreement was
reached and on 11th August, 1986 the case was referred to the
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 3rd October, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The new machine is technically more advanced than the
existing machines. It has more than twice their
output capacity. A greater level of skill will be
required from the workers than at present.
(ii) Due to the introduction of this machine the Company
will not have to send work outside the organisation
and this will help the Company's financial situation.
(iii) The Union does not accept that the introduction of
the machine is covered by existing agreements on
productivity. No mention was made during the
productivity negotiations of anything remotely
similar to this machine.
(iv) The Company claimed that Clause 1.3 of the General
Services Productivity Agreement allows for the
introduction of new technology not specifically
mentioned in the agreement. While this is correct,
the Union believes that the sheer magnitude of this
item is stretching the agreement beyond its limit.
If the Company can introduce this change without
negotiation they will be free, with the technology
now on the market, to alter fundamentally the
Printing Unit without agreement. This would not be
acceptable to the Union.
(v) The Company purchased and introduced this machine
without any consultation with the workers concerned,
although Clause 1.4 of the agreement requires them to
consult with staff involved in major technological
change. The Union had no opportunity to negotiate
its claim at any level.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The acceptance and the operation of new equipment was
provided for in the 1981 and 1984 General Services
productivity agreements. Indeed the acceptance of new
technology and work practices were fundamental to the
1984 agreement in particular (details supplied to the
Court).
(b) The new machine is a double headed machine which can
print in two colours in the one run. This will greatly
ease the production process.
(c) In recent years the Union has complained that the
Company's practice of contracting out printing work was
detrimental to the Printing Unit Staff. The Company
has invested substantially to enhance the role of the
Unit. The agreements entered into between the parties
were based on reciprocal committments and
understandings as to the development of the Unit. This
claim is a breach of these committments and
understandings.
(d) The Printing Unit both as a group in their own right
and as a Section within General Services has done
exceptionally well in terms of productivity and general
pay agreements in recent years. This claim is merely
an attempt to further enhance their position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the introduction of the new
equipment in question clearly comes within the terms of the 1981
and 1984 agreements and accordingly does not recommend concession
of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__20th__November,__1986. ____________________
T. O' M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman