Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87808 Case Number: LCR11628 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SMURFIT CORRUGATED CASES LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of two Grade 1 employees for up-grading to the Lead Man rate as compensation for operating a keyboard/V.D.U. (wage increase of #7.80 each per week).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties, the Court
is of the view that there is no merit in the Unions case and
accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87808 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11628
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SMURFIT CORRUGATED CASES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two Grade 1 employees for up-grading to the
Lead Man rate as compensation for operating a keyboard/V.D.U.
(wage increase of #7.80 each per week).
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim arises out of the Company's ongoing development in
the area of computerisation and the replacement of certain
production records by direct input at machine locations. The two
claimants are machine operators who as part of their normal duties
are required to keep certain production records. The Union on
their behalf sought a pay increase as compensation for operating
the keyboard/VDU system. The Company rejected the claim.
3. No agreement on this issue was reached at local level
discussions and on the 3rd September, 1987, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
progress was made at a conciliation conference on the 20th October
and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 3rd December,
1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A temporary worker has already been displaced as a direct
result of the claimants utilizing this new equipment.
2. All information that is being programmed is of the utmost
importance to the Company and as the benefits of this
information are ongoing, the Union is of the view that the
claimants should also benefit on an ongoing basis.
3. The cost of conceding this claim on a weekly basis is a
mere #15.60 in total. This cannot be described as costly
to the Company.
4. When claims of this nature were previously before the
Court, the Court has consistently found in the Unions' favour
(details supplied to the Court).
5. The Company has contended that the claimants' job is now
easier. The Union rejects this as its case is based on the
additional skills and knowledge that the claimants now have
to exercise.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a jurisdiction question concerning the reference
of this dispute to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The
same substantive matter has been the subject of a previous
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. Notwithstanding the
fact that the matter has subsequently been the subject of a
conciliation conference, it is arguable that this hearing is
in effect an appeal from the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
2. The Company contends that there is no justification
whatsoever for the increase claimed on behalf of the two
employees concerned. These employees are already paid the
second highest rate applicable to operatives and the Company
considers that this is adequate compensation for the work
they are required to carry out.
3. When the change in the method of recording information
was being implemented, adequate training was given to the
employees concerned to ensure that they would be fully
familiar with the change in the method of recording
information.
4. The amount of information required to be inputted is
considerably less than was required to be recorded under the
manual system. The Company's requirement has not changed.
It still requires an accurate record of information and it is
merely the method of recording such information that has
changed. Such change is properly labelled "normal ongoing
change' and does not therefore merit any additional
compensation.
5. It should be noted that concession of this claim to these
employees would almost certainly give rise to similar claims
from other sections of the workforce where normal ongoing
changes have been taking place.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties, the Court
is of the view that there is no merit in the Unions case and
accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th January, 1988 Evelyn Owens
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman