Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87680 Case Number: LCR11525 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NET - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of twenty eight shift workers, for compensation for the introduction of new technology.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the level of the Company's offer, the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87680 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11525
CC87601 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11525
Parties: IRISH FERTILISER INDUSTRIES
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of twenty eight shift workers, for
compensation for the introduction of new technology.
Background:
2. In early 1986, the Company installed a new gas compression
unit at its plant in Marino Point, Co. Cork, the purpose of which
is to maintain gas at the required operating pressure. The cost
of the unit is #1 million and the operational cost is #600,000 per
annum. The Union claimed five shifts training plus an extra
operator on all shifts for a six month period plus #500
compensation per operator. The Company offered three shifts
training (#389.43 overtime payment to each operator). No
agreement being reached, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 22nd May, 1987 and
the matter was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court.
The operatives agreed to undergo three shifts training pending the
Court hearing. The hearing took place on 20th October, 1987, in
Cork.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union believes that it will be necessary to have an
extra operator on all shifts for a six month period to
help cope with any emergency which might arise. The
training which is given is theoretical and it is for
this reason that an extra operator will be needed if a
real emergency arises.
(ii) The Union does not consider that the equipment will run
itself or require minimal involvement of the process
operators. There has been an increase in their
work-load and level of responsibility which warrants
reward other than assurances that the new equipment is
securing the future of the plant.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Management considers that its offer of three shifts
overtime for training is generous and believes that
this allows more than adequate time for the operators
to receive adequate training in the use of the new
equipment. There is no payback to the Company from the
equipment. It is necessary to ensure the operation of
the factory.
(b) Section 4 of the Trade Union Agreement which deals with
salary scales states:-
"It is agreed that the salary scales are
consolidated and cover any payment for dirt,
height, confined space, open site, excess
travelling time, training of fellow employees,
handling emergency equipment, membership of
safety/fire crew, new plant operation and any
other working environment associated with a modern
chemical/fertiliser factory."
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the level of the Company's offer, the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
13th November, 1987 -------------
A.K/U.S. Deputy Chairman