Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/87/631 Case Number: LCR11446 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CANTRELL & COCHRANE LTD - and - NEETU;ETU |
Claim, on behalf of approximately eleven maintenance craftsmen for a revision of pay rates.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the productivity agreement for
each grouping within the Company stands on its own. The Court
does not, therefore, recommend an increase to the claimants based
on relativity with the general operatives' productivity payment.
Any question of a revision of the craftsmens' productivity
agreement is one for negotiation between the parties themselves in
the first instance.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87631 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11446
CC87897 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11446
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately eleven maintenance craftsmen
for a revision of pay rates.
Background:
2. In October, 1986, the Company concluded a wide ranging
productivity agreement with general operatives in the Production
Department. Those workers got a #300 taxable lump sum, a #100
voucher and the equivalent of #3.07 increase on their basic rate.
In December, 1986, the craftsmen sought similar increases.
Following the withdrawal of labour by the workers concerned, a
settlement was reached which gave the craftsmen the same lump sum
as was given to the general workers. The Unions argue that there
was a commitment given by the Company before Christmas to discuss
the wage element of the claim in January, 1987. The Company
disputes this. The Unions did pursue a claim for an increase of
approximately #3.84 (equates proportionately with the #3.70
awarded to the general workers) but this was rejected by the
Management. As no local level solution could be found the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
the 5th June, 1987. No progress was made at a conciliation
conference on the 5th August (earliest date suitable to the
parties) and on the 19th August the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 11th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Unions contend that the maintenance workers have a
justifiable claim in as much as the increase of at
least one increment was given to all process workers.
Even those at the top of the scale got an extra
increment. Therefore, it cannot be argued by the
Company that the increases were simply the result of a
fairly widespread up-grading of various process
workers.
(b) The Company cannot argue that it needs no further
productivity from the maintenance section. The fact
is that it was given certain productivity concessions,
as part of the Christmas 1986 settlement. In the
particular circumstances, the Unions could simply have
argued that they were entitled to the same fringe
benefits as the process workers, under the terms of
Clause 8 of the Maintenance Craftsmens' Agreement
1977, which states -
"Extension of Fringe Benefits
Maintenance craftsmen shall be entitled to all
fringe benefits which apply to the general body of
manual workers in the firm in which they are
employed, e.g. pensions, service pay, extra
holidays and sick pay".
An annual Christmas bonus is just such a fringe
benefit. The craft unions could have held out for
payment of the bonus on those grounds alone. However,
that would have resulted in serious loss of production
at one of the busiest times of the year.
(c) It seems grossly unjust that the Company should now
argue that because the maintenance workers are
operating at optimum productivity, their wages should
be allowed to slip in relative terms to those workers
whose productivity is improving. The truth is that as
a plant becomes more efficient, the work of the
maintenance staff increases, as does the pressure to
complete jobs in a shorter time, to minimise downtime.
The Unions therefore argue that the claimants'
productivity is continually increasing.
(d) The increase in productivity is gradual and subtle.
It is less prone to the sort of quantum leap that
makes it easy for Management to identify an
improvement in productivity. The Unions cannot accept
an argument from Management that the general
productivity of a plant can improve and its production
improve, without there being a requirement for a
contribution from the maintenance staff in terms of
improved performance. Because Management cannot
measure productivity does not mean that it does not
happen.
(e) The Unions ask the Court to recognise that the
maintenance workforce make a valuable contribution to
increasing the productivity of a plant by keeping pace
with developing technology and ensuring that the plant
continues to run at greater levels of efficiency and
therefore ask the Court to recommend that the
maintenance craftsmen should receive proportionately
the same as the general increase given to the process
workers.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Union has claimed that because the increase in
grade rate was paid generally to industrial employees
it could not therefore represent a specific
productivity item and must therefore be applied to
craftsmen as well. This claim is illogical on two
counts. Firstly, the payment was not paid to all
industrial employees. It did not apply to warehouse
or distribution employees nor did it apply to all
production industrial employees. Secondly, those
production employees who did receive the increase on
their grade rate were all equally affected by the
elimination of guaranteed overtime in the productivity
agreement and therefore some element of their total
payment would naturally be common also.
(b) There is clear written evidence to show that the
Company entered and concluded a specific productivity
agreement with production industrial employees
(details supplied to the Court). Similarly there is
evidence to show that the productivity agreed with
craft fitters and electricians is substantially less
in scale. In fact the Union's case has been based not
on the relative value of the respective agreements but
on an argument of general relativity. This is a new
departure for craft negotiations in the Company.
Craft Unions over the past few wage rounds have been
at pains to change the emphasis away from basic pay
increases and to have some elements of increases paid
on non taxable items such as tool money.
(c) While industrial employees have reached agreement on
the 27th Wage Round for 5% for 12 months, the latest
craft claim is for 4.50% for 10 months on basic pay in
addition to claims on a range of other non basic pay
items. This, if successful, would also affect the
relativity with industrial employees on basic pay. So
therefore it is inconsistent on the one hand to make a
case on lost relativity and on the other to actively
pursue a policy which will further negatively affect
relativity on basic pay.
(d) Apart from the productivity agreements concluded with
both craftsmen and industrial employees in Production,
the Company reached a further productivity agreement
with clerical employees, some of whom also work in
Production. The scope and extent of this productivity
differed from the industrial and craft agreements and,
appropriately, the settlement terms were also
different.
(e) The Unions' claim, detailed in the letter to the
Company dated January 21, 1987, (copy submitted to the
Court) refers to the "restoration of differentials
arising from a restructuring of wage scales for
general workers". There has been no restructuring of
wage scales for general workers. Any changes which
have occurred are a result of specific productivity
agreements.
(f) The Company strenuously rejects the contention that
craftsmen must receive any increase received by other
groups of employees, irrespective of the scale of
improvement in productivity/efficiency. This
contention contrasts sharply with recent
rationalisation programmes which managed to ensure the
survival of the Company through the elimination of
years of accumulated inefficiencies and restrictive
practices.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the productivity agreement for
each grouping within the Company stands on its own. The Court
does not, therefore, recommend an increase to the claimants based
on relativity with the general operatives' productivity payment.
Any question of a revision of the craftsmens' productivity
agreement is one for negotiation between the parties themselves in
the first instance.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th October, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman