Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87686 Case Number: LCR11447 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HALLMARK CARDS - and - IPU |
Rate applicable to six workers for dual machine running.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the basis of the Union's claim for compensation for
the operation of two machines is unsustainable. However the Court
recommends that the employer's adjust their offer to 13% and the
amended offer be accepted by the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87686 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11447
CC871043 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11447
Parties: HALLMARK CARDS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
Subject:
1. Rate applicable to six workers for dual machine running.
Background:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards Incorporated,
and exports all its products to the United Kingdom and Europe.
The Irish operation was set up in 1959 and currently employs three
hundred workers.
3. The Company uses platen machines which emboss, die-cut and
foil stamp greeting cards, these machines have always been
operated on a one man to one machine basis. In January, 1987
management met with the Union and operators to discuss the
introduction of dual running, under the co-operation, flexibility,
etc, terms of the plant agreement (details supplied to the Court).
It was agreed that dual running would commence on a three month
trial basis and an assessment of the results would be made to
calculate the rate of increase to be paid to the workers.
4. Two machines were put onto dual running on 9th February, 1987
and four commenced dual running on 2nd March, 1987. At the end of
the trial period the Company calculated that the operation of dual
running had resulted in an output of 1.6 compared to single
operation (or 160% compared to 100%, an increase of 60%). The
Company also calculated that there was a reduction in machine
capacity to 80%. Based on these figures and the calculated cost
reduction the Company offered the operators an increase of 10%,
which was rejected. In June, 1987 a meeting was held between the
Union and the Company at which the Company made an offer of 11.3%
(#21.22). This was rejected by the Union as the operators
concerned were of the view that the 60% increase in production
should be shared as is normal in such cases, i.e. 20% to the
workers. The Company's position was that it could not improve its
offer as the decrease in output per machine and actual savings had
also to be assessed with the increased output per operator in
determining the rate to be paid. On 29th June, 1987 the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 2nd September, 1987 (the
earliest date suitable to the parties). The position of both
parties remained the same and on 10th September, 1987 the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 23rd
September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) It was agreed that dual running would be introduced on
a trial basis on the understanding that there would be
a sharing of any increase in production on the same
basis as the production deal agreed between the
Bobst/Die Make operators and the Company in 1984
(details supplied to the Court).
(ii) Using the Company's figures, a worker producing 25.4
thousand impressions per week receives #190 i.e. #7.48
per thousand. Under the dual manning system the worker
would be producing 40.6 thousand but only receiving
#4.68 per thousand although there would be an increase
in physical effort and responsibility. According to
the Company's figures production is increased by 60%
and this should be divided as usual with 1/3 to the
workers, i.e. an increase of 20% (#38) on the basic
rate of #190. Approximately nine years ago the Company
introduced dual running in another area on a temporary
basis and it was agreed that the operators would be
paid for the additional output on the second machine.
If this was applied to the present situation the
operators concerned would receive 60% on top of their
normal wages.
(iii) The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has prepared a
report on the analysis of the labour cost savings
(details supplied to the Court). It is the Union's
view that there are a number of errors in the Company's
calculations and that the Company has under - estimated
the savings from dual running significantly and the
offer of 11.3% is also therefore under - estimated.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) To maintain its competitive position in the export
markets, the Company must continuously make efforts to
improve efficiency and quality and minimise production
costs. Embossing, die-cutting and foil stamping on
platen machines is a significant cost component of
greeting card production and there is no disagreement
that dual running of platen machines is operationally
practical.
(b) Dual running of platen machines operates at other
production locations and elsewhere in the printing
industry. Following the trial period an analysis was
made of the results and costs involved (details
supplied to the Court). The Company is satisfied that
dual running of the machines would contribute to
improving competitiveness by reducing departmental
production costs by between 16% and 18% with the
existing equipment.
(c) The Company has carried out an analysis of all costs
(details supplied to the Court) and in calculating the
savings from dual running one must also take into
account the lost machine capacity and output as well as
the increased productivity per operator. The Company's
offer of a premium of 11.3% (#21.22) to the operators
represents a significant recognition of the operators
contributions towards the potential savings involved.
Any payment above this would invalidate the Company's
efforts to improve competitiveness.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the basis of the Union's claim for compensation for
the operation of two machines is unsustainable. However the Court
recommends that the employer's adjust their offer to 13% and the
amended offer be accepted by the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
5th October, 1987.
U.M./J.C.