Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8755 Case Number: LCR11185 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CHAMPION SPARK PLUGS,NAAS - and - ITGWU |
Claim for an upward adjustment in pay.
Recommendation:
7. The Court does not recommend concession of the claims.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8755 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11185
CC861232 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11185
Parties: CHAMPION SPARK PLUG INDUSTRIES B.V. NAAS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for an upward adjustment in pay.
Background:
2. During the 25th wage round negotiations the Union expressed
concern at the low rates of pay for utility operatives and
progress and supply operatives. In an arrangement separate from
the wage round, agreement was reached to increase the rates for
both grades by 15p per hour retrospective to the 1st April, 1985.
The Union contend that this agreement was on the understanding
that there would again be a review of the rates of pay and
incremental solution to the existence of low basic rates. The
Union also contends that during the 26th wage round negotiations
it was agreed that a further review would take place and that the
grade of storeperson/lead hands would be included in the review.
The Company has no recollection of any agreement to carry out a
review.
3. In April, 1986 the Union outlined its claim for an upward
adjustment in the rates of pay in respect of each of the grades
concerned. The Company rejected the claim in the case of the
utility, progress & supply and storepersons. The Union had the
work of the progress & supply operatives assessed by its senior
industrial engineering officer and presented the Company with
details of the appraisal. The Company rejected the claim.
4. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on
22nd July, 1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 23rd September, 1986 but no agreement was reached. On the 28th
January 1987 the parties agreed that the case be referred to the
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 5th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The principle operation of the progress and supply
operative is that of machine operator. There is a
differential of #31.60 to #34 per week between these
workers and setter/operators which is a comparable
grade. There is a differential of #18.80 at the
maximum of the scale between the setter/operator, which
is widely recognised as a semi-skilled job, and the
crafts workers. The setter/operator and the crafts
workers are only obliged to work at a 75% performance
but the progress and supply operative must have a work
performance of 85%. In respect of both the
differential and the work load the progress and supply
workers are treated disadvantageously.
(ii) There was an understanding with the Company for an
upward move of the rates of pay of the utility grade so
that they would be commensurate with internal rates as
well as external comparisons. With the exception of
service pay no other payments are made so that the
basic rates of pay are effectively the total earnings
package.
(iii) The utility grade operates in an environment of total
flexibility, interchangeability and commitment to a
high quality output, and the rates which apply to the
grade do not reflect the demands on the personnel
involved.
(iv) The function and responsibilities of the storemen has
not been adequately weighted in respect of striking a
rate for work of equal value in that the stores provide
a kingpin operation through which all operations
rotate.
(v) On an internal weighted comparison the storepersons are
unfavourably treated both within stores and within
grades. An external comparison of stores rates shows
that the Company's rate pre 26th wage round was at
least #35 less per 40 hour week than comparable rates.
Within the totality of the operation a case exists for
an adjustment in these rates.
(vi) The Union gave the Company an assurance that no
consequential claims would result from concession of
these claims.
(vii) It should be noted that the Company is a high
technical, wholly exporting company requiring high
analytical skills in its workforce utilising internal
promotion from utility progress and supply to
setter/operator. The demarcation between operations is
slight and the input and work application of each grade
determines the total efficiency of the operation.
(viii) The existing differential between the grades is
distorting the Company's image as a progressive
employment operating a totally flexible operation.
Equity demands concession of the Union's claims.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company's policy is to ensure that each worker is
fully occupied but not pressured into productivity type
activity. Such a policy would be contradictory to the
demands and precision demanded of its product. Where
excessive demands are made through greater output then
employment numbers are increased. That has been the
situation in all the areas related to the claim.
(b) Based on surveys the rates of pay of the three groups of
workers are fair and compare favourably with rates in the
area. Given the level of settlements under the various
wage rounds the gap is widening in favour of the workers
concerned.
(c) The 'study' carried out by the Union's senior industrial
engineering officer was an attempt to justify the claim.
The overall impression of the study is that it was not
very scientific and there is a question mark on its
credibility.
(d) These claims are not justified because, on two previous
occasions, the Union had made an examination of the pay
rates and had claims satisfactorily resolved. It is not
unreasonable to assume that on the two previous occasions
the store-keepers rates were in line.
(e) The productivity claim has no basis in fact and even if a
situation developed where employees were over extended,
the situation would be remedied by recruitment of more
labour as has been the practice to date.
Recommendation:
7. The Court does not recommend concession of the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan.
___________________________
Chairman.
14th May, 1987.
T.O'M./P.G.