Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87475 Case Number: LCR11350 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CENTRAL BANK - and - IPU |
(a) Claim on behalf of two guillotine operators for a 6% increase in pay. (b) Claim for an increase in pay for four No. 1 printers arising from the erosion of a differential.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) - Increase for guillotine operators
9. The Court is of the view that, on the basis of the evidence
presented, an increase in pay for the claimants is not warranted.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Claim (b) - Printers Rate
10. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87475 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11350
CC87578 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11350
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
Subject:
1. (a) Claim on behalf of two guillotine operators for a 6%
increase in pay.
(b) Claim for an increase in pay for four No. 1 printers
arising from the erosion of a differential.
General background:
2. The Central Bank took over the function of printing bank notes
in the 1970's and this process is carried out at the Bank's
premises in Sandyford, Dublin. The printing process involves a
number of stages on different machines. The finishing process
involves "knocking up" (ensuring that sheets of paper are stacked
in such a way that the edges are even), counting, examination and
cutting. Printers are graded as No. 1 and No. 2 and the cutting
of sheets of bank notes is performed by guillotine operators.
Claims arose in relation to an increase in pay for guillotine
operators and No. 1 printers as outlined hereunder. No agreement
being reached, the matters were referred, on 8th April, 1987, to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 13th May, 1987. Again, no agreement was
reached and the matters were referred to a full hearing of the
Labour Court. The hearing took place on 13th July, 1987.
Claim (a) - Increase in pay for two guillotine operators
Background:
3. Labour Court Recommendation No. 10,441, dated 28th April,
1986, awarded a 6% increase to staff "directly engaged in the
knocking up operation" arising from a claim concerning the
introduction of quick drying ink in 1983. Prior to that the 6%
had been paid to a limited number of staff. The Union is now
seeking application of the 6% to the two guillotine operators.
Union' argument:
4. The Union contends that the 6% should extend to the
two guillotine operators. They are required to carry
out the knocking up process prior to the cutting of
sheets of bank notes. Since the introduction of quick
drying ink this process has had to be carried out with
greater exactness as the ink frequently causes the
sheets of paper to stick together.
Bank's arguments:
5. (a) The Bank does not consider that sticking occurs by the
time the sheets of notes reach the cutting stage, at
which time they are handled by the guillotine
operator. The sheets have by this time been through
several processes which should eliminate sticking
(details supplied). Furthermore, the output from the
two guillotines allows adequate time to be spent on
knocking up and positioning reams. It does not
require any extra effort by guillotine operators to
handle reams printed on the new machine introduced for
the use of quick drying ink.
(b) Concession of the claim would create a differential in
favour of guillotine operators over certain printers.
This would be an anomalous situation.
(c) The rate of pay and conditions of employment of the
guillotine operators are generally better than those
pertaining in the printing industry (details
supplied). The Bank as part of the Public Sector must
also take account of Government guidelines on control
of expenditure.
Claim (b) - Printers' rate
Background:
6. In 1973 when the Bank recruited printers it was agreed that
composite rates would be struck for both the No. 1 and No. 2
printers to reflect different levels of responsibility on each
machine. This was a departure from practice generally in the
industry where one basic rate applied to all printers with machine
extras applied as appropriate. Changes have arisen in the
differential between the two composite rates as a result of
National Wage Agreements and subsequent pay round increases and
machine differentials for new machines negotiated under Clause 12
4(a) of the Registered Employment Agreement between the Irish
Printing Federation and the Printing Trades' Group of Unions. The
differential has been eroded from 7.6% in 1973 to 5.6% at present.
In February 1987 the Union sought that the differential be
maintained at 6%. The Bank rejected the claim.
Union's argument:
7. When the printers rates were negotiated in 1973 there
were no other machine rates paid in the Central Bank.
The differential between No. 1 and No. 2 printers
rates was not, at that time, expressed as a
percentage. However, in the meantime, it has become
Union policy to express such extra machine payments as
percentages. The Union now wishes to bring the Bank
into line with industry generally. The differential
is currently being eroded and its expression as a
percentage would rectify this. Concession of the
claim would cost only 90p per person per week.
Banks' arguments:
8. (a) While machine rates are now generally expressed as a
percentage in the Printing Industry, this is not the
case in the Bank where two rates have been negotiated
and agreed in recognition of the varying
responsibilities of the printers. Wage increases over
the years have frequently included an element designed
to draw lower paid staff closer to the higher grades.
This has resulted in the erosion of the differential.
It seems anomalous to the Bank that the Union is
seeking to restore a differential that was negotiated
out through National Wage Agreements, National
Understandings and Industry Agreements.
(b) Concession of the claim could have serious
repercussive effects.
(c) The rates of pay and conditions of employment of the
printers in the Bank (details supplied) are generally
better than those pertaining in the printing industry.
The Bank as part of the Public Sector must also take
account of Government guidelines on control of
expenditure.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) - Increase for guillotine operators
9. The Court is of the view that, on the basis of the evidence
presented, an increase in pay for the claimants is not warranted.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Claim (b) - Printers Rate
10. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
31st July, 1987
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman