Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88127 Case Number: LCR11779 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for a differential for 7 machine and general assistants in the mint department.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
finds no grounds on which to recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88127 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11779
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a differential for 7 machine and general assistants
in the mint department.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1973, the Bank set up its own printing operation and
recruited workers from the commercial printers which had
previously carried out this work. Two rates had applied in the
printers and following negotiations it was agreed that the workers
would be paid the higher rate and graded as machine and general
assistants. In 1975/76 the Bank set up its own mint operation and
the workers employed there were also graded as machine and general
assistants. The Union is claiming that the machine and general
assistants in the mint department should be paid a differential
due to the skills and knowledge required and this is supported by
the fact that in the Royal Mint in the U.K. a differential
applies. This claim was rejected by the Bank on the basis that in
1980 two IPC Reports confirmed that a 6.25% payment for
productivity for all machine and general assistants proposed by
the Bank was adequate.
3. On 30th November, 1987 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 9th February, 1988 (the earliest date
suitable to the parties) at which no progress was made and on 19th
February, 1988 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 10th March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers do not receive adequate remuneration for the
skills and responsibilities required (details supplied to the
Court). It takes workers moving into the mint department
approximately six months to acquire the necessary skills. The
setting of the coin master machines is not done by
maintenance fitters or craftsmen but for the most part by
these workers who must use their initiative in setting the
machines which are not always set in accordance with
specifications due to wear and tear, etc.
4. 2. The Royal Mint in the U.K. employs setters/operators who
are paid the negotiated craft rate plus a differential and
bonus payment. Another category of worker are operators and
machine minders who do no setting and are on a lower basic
rate. The differential between the rates is 84.436% the
existence of which acknowledges the skills of the
setters/operators. Similarly in this case a differential of
84.436% of basic rate should apply to machine and general
assistants while working in the mint department. This
differential would not be transferable where workers moved to
other areas.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The IPC produced two reports in 1980 (details supplied to
the Court) which confirmed that a 6.25% productivity payment
for machine and general assistants was adequate. The IPC had
also examined the skilled aspects of the work in the mint
department at that time. The skill element required from
machine and general assistants has therefore already been paid
for by the Bank.
2. While the Union has used operations in the UK as a
comparison, it must be pointed out that these operations are
significantly different. In the UK the operation is more
automated, one coin press setter is responsible for setting a
number of machines and each machine minder attends a number of
machines. In this Bank, each coin press is operated by one
machine and general assistant who is not responsible for
maintenance, etc. The rate of pay of machine and general
assistants is £189.09 per week which is already 29% above the
agreed basic industry rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
finds no grounds on which to recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___7th____April,___1988. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman