LCR10988

Subject:
Claim on behalf of approximately 7 production workers for equalisation of bonus scheme.

Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties recommends the introduction of the bonus improvements
sought for both groups and that the total workforce should accept
the principle of work-through with flexible, staggered work
breaks; payment for staggering the morning break should cease and
only the lunch break of 30 minutes should be paid for at flat time
rate.

The Court further recommends that the union should negotiate with
management for the purpose of establishing a downtime monitoring
system acceptable to both parties.

Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD86978 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10988
CC861308 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10988

PARTIES: JOHNSON AND JOHNSON (IRELAND) LIMITED

and

IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION



Subject:

1. Claim on behalf of approximately 7 production workers for
equalisation of bonus scheme.

Background:

2. The Company currently employs 33 factory operatives, most of
whom are on a production related bonus system. The present bonus
scheme was introduced in 1980 and the arrangements were that
existing machine operatives would receive a bonus of 40% of basic
pay for 100 performance, while new employees would receive 33
1/3%. Currently about 5 workers are on the 33 1/3% rate.
Negotiations have been ongoing between the Company and the Union
since 1982 on this issue and the dispute was one of the claims at
a previous Labour Court hearing (Labour Court Recommendation No.
7938 of 7th April, 1983 refers), when approximately 15 workers
were involved in the claim. The Recommendation was as follows:-

"The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim but recommends that the Company develop its offer
of a revised bonus scheme and that it be sympathetically
examined by the Union".

3. Following this Recommendation, local talks were held in 1983
but no progress was made on the issue. The Company agreed to
concede the Union's claim if the Union would agree to the
introduction of downtime monitoring and the elimination of 90
performance downtime bonus, this was not acceptable to the Union.
In 1986, two other workers, a production utility operative and an
engineering maintenance assistant, both in receipt of
non-productive bonuses were included in the claim for equalisation
of bonus rates. The production utility operative had formerly
been employed as a machine operator (with production bonus of 33
1/3%) from 1982 to 1985, in 1985, due to redundancies, he was
reassigned as a production utility operative but retaining the
machine operator's basic rate of pay. In 1986, the Union made a
claim on behalf of the two workers for payment at the machine
operators bonus rate, as agreement could not be reached this claim
was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. A hearing was held on 1st July, 1986, no
recommendation was issued following a Company proposal that the
claim be subsumed into the wider claim. (The Right's Commissioner
left it open to the Union to resubmit the claim if so desired).

4. In the course of negotiations at local level, the Company put
forward the following proposal (for operation on a trial basis):-

(a) Bonus improvements to be conceded to the workers
concerned (i.e. from 33 1/3% to 40% for 5 workers and
the 2 workers in receipt of non-productive bonuses to be
paid a bonus equal to the 100 performance rate paid at
40%).

(b) Downtime to be paid at 90 performance rate but
monitoring equipment to be introduced.

(c) All production workers to co-operate on run-throughs of
breaks and to be paid on an overtime basis.

5. Item (b) was unacceptable to the Union and in relation to item
(c) the Union proposed that only those workers benefiting from
bonus improvements would operate work-throughs on breaks (at the
overtime rate). This was not acceptable to the Company and on 1st
August, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 23rd
September, 1986, at which no agreement could be reached. Further
local talks were than held and the Company put forward the
following proposal:-

(a) Bonus improvements to be conceded for the workers.

(b) All factory workers to accept the principle of
work-through flexibility on breaks (but without extra
payment) as one of the conditions of employment.

(c) The introduction of downtime monitoring and the
elimination of downtime at 90 performance rate to be
deferred.

6. This was unacceptable to the Union who proposed that in
relation to item (b) payment for staggering the morning break stop
but that flexibility on the lunch break (30 minutes) be paid at
the rate of one and a half times (later amended to 30 minutes at
flat rate). This was rejected by the Company and a further
conciliation conference took place on 18th November, 1986. As no
agreement could be reached the claim was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 19th January, 1987.

Union's arguments:

7. (i) The Union has made every effort to come to an
agreement with the Company on this issue. According
to Company figures the cost of equalising the bonus
for the workers would be just over #5,300 per annum,
the cost would have been even less taking into account
savings the Company could have made, if agreement had
been reached on the issues, in relation to premium
payments for flexibility on the breaks.

(ii) Since 1982 the Company has said that it is not opposed
in principle to concession of the claim for
equalisation of bonus rates but that certain changes
would have to be conceded by the workers in return.
Proposals put forward by the Union during negotiations
have included items which would yield savings to the
Company although resulting in a decrease in wages to
all the production workers.

Company's arguments:

8. (a) The bonus rates paid to the workers concerned are in
accordance with the conditions agreed when the present
bonus scheme was introduced.

(b) The Company will not change the conditions of the
bonus scheme without achieving benefits and cost
savings in return. The cost of conceding the claim
for equalisation of bonus rates would be in excess of
#5,000 per annum, this cost could be met by the
Company's proposals for the introduction of downtime
monitoring, elimination of 90 performance downtime
bonus and work-through flexibility as a normal
condition of employment for all factory workers.

RECOMMENDATION:

9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties recommends the introduction of the bonus improvements
sought for both groups and that the total workforce should accept
the principle of work-through with flexible, staggered work
breaks; payment for staggering the morning break should cease and
only the lunch break of 30 minutes should be paid for at flat time
rate.

The Court further recommends that the union should negotiate with
management for the purpose of establishing a downtime monitoring
system acceptable to both parties.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


4th February, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman