Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86935 Case Number: LCR11085 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TARKETT LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for a lead in payment (#1,000 per worker) for the introduction of a polyurethane line.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
necessity of the Company to adapt to ongoing technological change
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86935 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11085
CC86598 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11085
Parties: TARKETT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for a lead in payment (#1,000 per worker) for the
introduction of a polyurethane line.
Background:
2. The Company which employs 197 workers is a subsidiary of the
Swedish Match Group and manufactures vinyl flooring. In February,
1983, the Union and the Company agreed to implement major changes
in work practices, manning levels, alterations etc., to ensure the
survival of the Company. The details of these changes were
covered by a survival document which was to be effective for 2
years up to February, 1985. The detailed action covered by the
document was completed by February, 1985. In recognition of these
changes the workers received an extra #6.50 as well as the usual
cost of living increases. In July, 1985 the Company decided to
initiate the planning and installation of a polyurethane coater on
the foam line, the object of which was to improve the quality of
the finished vinyl flooring. There are approximately 24 workers
involved in the process. By June, 1986 the training of the
workers involved was completed together with the commissioning of
the polyurethane coater. A meeting was held at which the Union
lodged a claim for a lead in payment for the workers involved.
The Company refused to concede the claim and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 29th
September, 1986. A conciliation conference was held on 18th
November, 1986. As no agreement could be reached both parties
agreed to refer the issue to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held in Mullingar
on 10th March, 1987, a date suitable to both parties. The lead in
payment was quantified at #1,000 per worker.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The introduction of this process is additional to the
duties previously agreed and expected from the workers
in this area. The workers on the foam line have now
had to acquire additional expertise in order to ensure
that this process was carried out correctly. This
addition on to the foam line has also meant that the
workers when patrolling have to observe not one process
but two and are in fact looking after two different
lines.
(b) After the introduction of this process and following a
study by the I.I.R.S. the Company have stated that this
process is unsafe and as a consequence of this report
the workers involved in the process have had to wear
special protective clothing i.e. eye protection and
respirators in addition the Company were to make some
structural changes in order to minimise the risk
involved.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The changes involved in the commissioning of the foam
line were minimal and did not constitute an additional
burden on the employees involved to justify any extra
payment. Particularly when we had an additional
operator on each production shift at that time. The
Company already incurred additional costs in that the
bulk of the training and commissioning were carried out
on overtime and at premium rates.
(ii) A situation of ongoing change within the plant, prior
to and subsequent to the survival document. The Union
have recognised the need for these changes and the need
to accept them without imposing any additional
financial claims on the Company when they occur.
Paragraph 3.1 of the new house agreement supports this
position.
(iii) The provision of a lead in payment has never been a
Company policy in the past and we feel that such a lead
in payment could have a similar spin off effect in the
future which would be detrimental to our cost
effectiveness and put employment at even more risk than
at present.
(iv) The Company must continue to reduce costs and increase
competitiveness in order to survive particularly at
this time when the parent Company has purchased a
similar plant in Europe and the labour relations and
cost effectiveness are under even closer scrutiny than
before.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
necessity of the Company to adapt to ongoing technological change
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
6th April, 1987
M.D./J.C.