Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87131 Case Number: LCR11098 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WILKES CERDAC LTD - and - IPU |
Claim on behalf of 17 machine operators for increases in machine rates.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends a 17% increase on the basic rate subject to
absorption by payments over the basic in respect of the Harris
CF50 Press and an increase of 8% similarly calculated in respect
of the Ofcon - 204 DNP machine.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87131 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11098
D86799 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11098
Parties: WILKES CERDAC LTD
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION)
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 17 machine operators for increases in
machine rates.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the printing and manufacture of
computer business forms and stationery. It employs a total of 55
workers, 17 of whom are in membership of the Union.
3. In the commercial sector of the printing industry "machine
extras", expressed as a percentage of the basic rate, form part of
the industry level Agreement between the Irish Printing Federation
and Dublin Printing Trades' Group of Unions (details of rates
supplied to the Court). In April, 1986 the Union, on behalf of
the workers concerned, served a claim on the Company for an
increase in machine rates in respect of the Harris CF 50 Press (3
colour) and Ofcon 204 Press (2 colour) printing machines, as
follows:
Harris 3 colour 24% on basic rate
Ofcon 2 colour 18% on basic rate
The Company rejected the claim but in the course of negotiations
at local level offered, subject to absorption by existing payments
over basic rates, the following rates:
Harris 3 colour 14%
Ofcon 2 colour 6%
This was rejected by the Union and the matter was referred, on
22nd May, 1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
At a conciliation conference, held on 7th October, 1986, (the
earliest date suitable to the parties) the Company, in a final
effort to reach agreement on the matter, offered to rate the
Harris machine at 15%. This was also unacceptable to the Union
and the claim was then referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 12th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Harris 3 colour machine is a much more versatile
machine than those already rated and is capable of
doing more sizes (details supplied to the Court). It
is on this basis the Union considers it should carry
the 24% rate. While the Ofcon 2 colour machine is
regarded as not being a high special speed press it was
purchased by the Company for its ability to changeover
(details supplied to the Court) and is regarded as a
better machine than the multimatic machine. Therefore,
a claim for a rate of 18% for that machine is
reasonable.
(ii) The claim is being processed under Clause 11 of the
Registered Agreement for the printing industry which
reads as follows:
"11 NEW MACHINERY AND DEVICES.
The following procedure will be used when new or
amended machinery and devices are introduced that
are not covered by existing agreements; the
organisations concerned shall arrange a joint
inspection within three months of the machine
commencing running. In the meantime, pending the
inspection and until agreement is reached the
machine operator shall receive his ordinary wages.
In the event of a higher rate being agreed it will
have retrospective application less any agreed
training period."
With regard to this Clause, the claim is being
processed for the past 12 months (approximately) and
the machines in question have run without interruption.
(iii) The Company refers to the fact that the Ofcon machine
has been in operation for over three years without
being the subject of a previous claim. However, the
Union understood that when this machine was installed
the operator's wages were adjusted by the Company,
hence no rate was sought for the machine.
(iv) The Company contends that any increases in machine
rates should be subject to absorption. This is
unacceptable to the Union on the basis that payments to
individuals by the Company in excess of the basic rate
is a private matter between the Company and the
individual on which the Union has no input, and
therefore, cannot be taken into consideration in this
claim.
(v) Because of the nature of the work involved, concession
of the Union's claim will not have repercussive
effects, as contended by the Company.
(vi) The claim is fair and reasonable and should be
conceded.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Until 1985, when it was acquired by the Clondalkin
Group, the Company suffered from lack of investment to
modernise equipment essential for competitive
production and marketing. Unrealistic and excessive
claims are counterproductive to on-going investment,
development and the security of employment.
(b) Machine extras in the printing industry are negotiated
and agreed subject to absorption by existing payments
over basic rates. All machine operators employed by
the Company are paid at least 25% over the basic rate.
(c) The Harris and Ofcon machines cannot be rated for
machine extras on a basis out of line and incompatible
with other equipment in terms of capital investment,
production capacity and operating speed as this would
result in consequential claims in respect of other
machines.
(d) Although the Ofcon machine has been in operation for
four years in the Company it has not been the subject
of any previous claim by the Union.
(e) The Company's offer that the Harris and Ofcon machines
be rated 15% and 6% respectively subject to absorption
by payments over the basic rate, is fair and reasonable
and should be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends a 17% increase on the basic rate subject to
absorption by payments over the basic in respect of the Harris
CF50 Press and an increase of 8% similarly calculated in respect
of the Ofcon - 204 DNP machine.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
____________________________
Deputy Chairman.
9th April, 1987.
T.McC./J.C.