Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86945 Case Number: LCR10973 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HALLMARK CARDS - and - ITGWU |
INCREASE IN RATES
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that no additional skill or effort is
required on the part of the packers which would warrant additional
payment. The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86945 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10973
CC861699 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10973
PARTIES: HALLMARK CARDS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of six operatives for regrading.
Background:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards Incorporated
U.S.A. and exports all its products to the United Kingdom and
Europe. The Irish operation was established in 1959 and at
present employs 290 workers.
3. In February, 1986, the Company introduced new machinery called
'binding machines' to replace its three 'overwrapping machines' in
the packing-off operation. When the overwrapping machines were in
use they were each manned by three grade 4 operatives and a grade
3 operator. Arising from the introduction of the new machinery
only six of the nine operatives are required in the operation
concerned and the other three operatives were redeployed at the
same rate of pay within the packaging department. (Subsequently
the grade 3 operators were upgraded to grade 2).
4. In July, 1986, the Union, on behalf of the six remaining
grade 4 operatives in the new operation, served a claim on the
Company for their regrading to grade 3 on the basis that they were
now doing work previously done by nine operatives. The current
rate of pay appropriate to the two grades, inclusive of the 25th
wage round, are as follows:-
grade 4 - #149.53 per week
grade 3 - #160.98 " "
The Company rejected the claim and as no agreement could be
reached at local level the matter was referred, on 14th October,
1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Following
a conciliation conference, held on 17th November, 1986, which
failed to resolve the dispute, the claim was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 15th January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The claim for the upgrading of the workers concerned
is fair and reasonable having regard to the benefits
being derived by the Company through the new system,
especially the savings being generated by having three
workers less involved in the operation.
(ii) The six workers concerned are still doing the same
volume of work as previously done by nine operatives.
Therefore, an increase in pay is warranted.
(iii) The operators who worked on the overwrapping machines
were upgraded from grade 3 to grade 2 following the
introduction of the new method of operation, on the
basis that additional skills were required. No valid
reasons exist why the workers concerned should not be
treated in a similar manner.
(iv) The Union rejects the Company's contention that this
claim is precluded under the terms of the plant
procedural agreement.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The reduction in team size resulted primarily from the
changed wholesale packaging specification. This did
not lead to increased machine output, nor require any
additional effort or skill on the part of remaining
members of the packaging team.
(b) To accept the Union's contention that any increase in
output per head, for whatever reason, automatically
justifies productivity payments, would have very
serious implications for the Company's competitive
position and future operation prospects.
(c) Concession of the claim would have repercussive
effects by way of similar claims from other groups of
workers in the plant.
(d) The claim is precluded under the terms of the plant
agreement (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that no additional skill or effort is
required on the part of the packers which would warrant additional
payment. The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th February, 1987 John O'Connell
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman