Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87241 Case Number: LCR11147 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DATA PACKAGING LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claims in respect of the 26th wage round for: (a) an increase in basic pay and, (b) upgrading of two warehouse operatives.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that management's offer in respect of the
26th round is fair and reasonable and should be accepted by the
trade union.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for the
re-grading of the two warehouse operatives.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87241 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11147
CC87363 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11147
Parties: DATA PACKAGING LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims in respect of the 26th wage round for:
(a) an increase in basic pay and,
(b) upgrading of two warehouse operatives.
General background:
2. The Company was established in Mullingar in 1981 and
manufacturers a range of plastic moulded products for the computer
and related industries. The operation involves injection
moulding, product assembly and coatings and finishings. At
present the Company employs a total of 152 workers, 113 of whom
are represented by the Union, made up of 35 short term and 78
permanent workers.
3. The terms of the 25th wage round expired in the Company on
30th November, 1986. In January, 1987 the Union, on behalf of the
workers it represents, served a number of claims on the Company in
respect of the 26th wage round. In the course of negotiations
between the parties at local level all the issues were resolved
with the exception of the above two claims, which were referred,
on 24th February, 1987, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference, held on 10th March, 1987,
failed to resolve the dispute and the matters were referred, on
24th March, 1987, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 7th April,
1987, in Athlone.
Claim (a) - increase in basic pay
Background:
3. The workers concerned are employed in four different grades in
the Company. The basic rates applying to these grades, inclusive
of the terms of the 25th wage round, are as follows:
Grade Position Basic No. of Employees
weekly (Permanent)
rate
#
1 Assembly operator 123.23 21
Coating & Finishing
Operator
2 Moulding Operator 133.53 26
3 Material Handler 137.21 14
Warehouse Operator
3 Q.C. Inspector 143.75 12
Spray Painter
Toolsetter
4 Chargehand 158.13 5
TOTAL 78
The Union, served a claim on the Company for a substantial
increase in basic pay, which it subsequently quantified as 8%, in
respect of a 26th round wage agreement of 12 months duration,
operative from 1st December, 1986. In the course of negotiations
at local level the Company made the following final offer on the
claim:
(a) 5% basic pay increase from 1st December, 1986 to 31st
August, 1987,
(b) 2% basic pay increase from 1st September, 1987 to 29th
February, 1988,
The offer was rejected by the workers.
Unions' arguments:
4. (i) The current rates of pay of the workers concerned are
inadequate and out of line with the average industrial
weekly wage.
(ii) Settlements to date under the 26th wage round provide
an average increase in basic pay of 6.8% over a 13.6
month period, which when annualised is 6% over 12
months. Given that the Company proposes a 15 month
agreement its offer of 7% is out of line with the
average settlement under the current pay round.
(iii) Since the Company was established in 1981 the workers
have been fully co-operative and flexible resulting in
a high quality standard of work. This has secured some
lucrative contracts for the Company.
(iv) While the Company suffered a fall-off in demand during
1986, this position has been reversed in the current
year. This is reflected in the Company recruiting
additional workers in the recent part.
(v) In order for the workers to improve their living
standards they would need to receive an increase in
excess of the norm established under the current pay
round. Therefore, the Union's claim is fair and
reasonable and should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Computer industry worldwide has seen a market
downturn over the last few years. First to bear the
brunt of this are the suppliers to the industry and as
a result the Company has been experiencing adverse
trading conditions (details supplied to the Court).
Despite its difficulties, the Company entered into
meaningful negotiations on pay with the Union with a
view to balancing present difficulties against a more
long term optimistic view (details supplied to the
Court). In the circumstances, the offer made by the
Company is fair and reasonable.
(b) In the negotiations on this claim the Company was
anxious to continue its policy of paying competitive
pay rates thereby recognising, in so far as possible,
the aspirations of its employees. This it has
succeeded in doing as its offer on the 26th wage round
is in excess of the average settlements under this pay
round in comparable companies locally and is in line
with the average trends in the current pay round
generally. The offer is also well ahead of the current
rate of inflation.
(c) The Company's offer is fair and reasonable and should
be accepted by the Union.
Claim (b) - upgrading of two warehouse operatives
Background:
6. The current basic pay rate of warehouse operatives is the
grade 2 rate of #137.21 per week. The Union, on behalf of the two
warehouse operatives concerned, served a claim on the Company for
their upgrading to the grade 3 rate of #143.75 per week which at
present covers quality control inspectors, spray painters and a
tool setter on the basis that they have taken on additional
responsibility. The Company rejected the claim.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) In the recent past the two workers concerned have been
given the responsibility for loading containers which
had previously been the responsibility of their foreman
or chargehand. On this basis, they should receive a
higher rate of pay.
(ii) It is normal practice throughout industry generally for
warehouse operatives' storemen to be paid at the top
grade in their employment.
(iii) The workers concerned are responsible for quantity.
This responsibility is equal in value to that of
workers who are responsible for quality and who are
paid at the grade 3 rate.
(iv) Given the small number of workers involved, concession
of the claim would be of minimal cost to the Company.
(v) The workers to whom the grade 3 rate of pay applies
have received internal training in relation to the
specific jobs they perform but they are not recognised
as skilled workers. There is no valid reason
therefore, why the grade 3 rate of pay should not apply
to the two operatives concerned, given their additional
responsibilities and the accuracy with which they must
carry out their duties (details supplied to the Court).
(vi) The claim is fully justified and should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
8. (a) The grading structure established has been carefully
set to reflect the relative worth of the various
positions required to run the Company's operation. No
changes in the load or responsibility of warehouse
operatives have occurred in the intervening period to
justify a revision of their grade.
(b) The grade 3 rate covers specialised positions in the
Company (details supplied to the Court) and the higher
rate of pay is intended to reflect this. The workers
concerned do not perform duties of a specialised nature
and therefore, they do not qualify for the grade 3
rate.
(c) Concession of the claim would upset established
relativities in the Company resulting in a sequence of
future claims from other groups of workers.
(d) In all the circumstances the claim must be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that management's offer in respect of the
26th round is fair and reasonable and should be accepted by the
trade union.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for the
re-grading of the two warehouse operatives.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
Deputy Chairman
11th May, 1987
T.McC./J.C.