Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86823 Case Number: LCR10911 Section / Act: S67 Parties: A.B.S. PUMPS LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for an increase in allowance for two spray painters.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company agree to increase the Spray Painters
allowance paid to the two named painters who are the subject of
the claim, to 5.50% from 1st December, 1986, for as long as they use
the present type of paint. The Court further recommends that the
Union accepts that this increase if implemented will not form the
basis for any claim to adjust wage relativities in the firm.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86823 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10911
CC861149 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10911
Parties: A.B.S. PUMPS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for an increase in allowance for two spray painters.
Background:
2. In 1983 the Union and the Company agreed that the spray
painting allowance be fixed at 3.50% of basic. Shortly after this
settlement was agreed, the spray painting booths of two workers
were re-located in another part of the factory. Several
modifications were made to the spray booths, but the Union
contends that these were not necessarily improvements. As a
consequence of unpleasant working conditions, and a change in
paint which the Union contends is more difficult to work with, a
7% spray painting allowance for the two workers concerned is being
sought by the Union. Local discussions failed to resolve the
issue, and on 9th July, 1986, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at the conciliation conference which took place on 25th
September, 1986. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on 23rd October,
1986. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 5th December, 1986.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) The facilities at the new location are inadequate and
less than favourable in comparison to the previous
operating area. There have been numerous problems with
the spraying operation and, at times, the two workers
have worked "under protest" as some of the complaints
were related to safety.
(ii) The conveyor system cannot be operated automatically as
pumps are being prepared or tested in the same area,
and therefore the pumps, suspended from the conveyor
line, must be manually pushed into the spray booths to
prevent injury to persons operating in the same area.
A considerable physical effort is required from the two
workers throughout the day.
(iii) The type of paint being used has recently been changed,
and this is not as easy to work with as the previously
used cellulose paint. There is a constant flow of
water through the booth to absorb the paint spray, but
so far it has not been successful. It has merely
caused a problem insofar as it becomes rather "smelly"
after some time. On occasion the two workers have been
unable to operate as the smell has been unbearable.
(iv) A lot of the problems will be ongoing as they are
features of the job, and must be endured on a day to
day basis. However safety procedures must be complied
with and any dangerous practices must be eliminated.
It is therefore a fact that the particular job is
unpleasant and dirty but is essential to the overall
operation and must be maintained.
(v) There is some recognition of these facts by Management,
but the present 3.50% differential is not considered
adequate in relation to the work involved. Spray
painters in comparable employments in the area are paid
a higher basic wage (details with Court). The Union
does not consider that the claim is excessive as the
present 3.50% differential between general workers and
spray painters at A.B.S. Pumps Ltd is approximately
#4.32 per week, and an increase of 7% would not create
a massive financial difficulty for the Company, even if
it were extended to the other 2 spray painters employed
by the Company.
Company arguments:
4. (a) Various differentials are applied to different
categories of employment within the Company, and a
change in any such differential would have an immediate
and obvious effect on other categories.
(b) The Company agreed to re-negotiate the 1973 agreement
on three occasions. In 1983 the A.B.S. allowance for
spray painting was aligned with local industry and the
differential of 3.50 has been firmly established
for this category since then.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company agree to increase the Spray Painters
allowance paid to the two named painters who are the subject of
the claim, to 5.50% from 1st December, 1986, for as long as they use
the present type of paint. The Court further recommends that the
Union accepts that this increase if implemented will not form the
basis for any claim to adjust wage relativities in the firm.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
Deputy Chairman.
13th January, 1987.
P.F./J.C.