Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88221 Case Number: LCR11893 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ATLAS ALUMINIUM LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims for: (a) an increase in shift premium from 20% to 25% for 3 cycle shift working, (b) an increase in the zinc casting rate, (c) the creation of a new grade of senior inspector, (d) wage increase under the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
Recommendation:
17. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, recommends as follows:
(A) Shift Rate - No increase in the present
rate of 20%.
(B)/(C) Re-grading - The Court notes the agreement
of the parties to a
re-assessment of the jobs
being carried out by the
Company and the Union's
Industrial Engineer.
(D) National Wage Agreement: The full terms of the
Agreement to be paid from the
expiry of the previous
agreement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88221 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11893
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ATLAS ALUMINIUM LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY JOHN HARTY AND ASSOCIATES)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for:
(a) an increase in shift premium from 20% to 25% for 3 cycle
shift working,
(b) an increase in the zinc casting rate,
(c) the creation of a new grade of senior inspector,
(d) wage increase under the Programme for National Recovery
(P.N.R.).
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. Atlas Aluminium is a wholly owned Irish manufacturing Company
engaged in aluminium die-casting and employs some seventy people.
70% of its output is exported to the U.K., U.S.A., Germany and
Belgium.
3. Following the expiry of the last wage round on the 31st
December, 1987, the Union lodged the above-mentioned claims. No
agreement on the claim could be reached at local level and on the
9th February, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. The parties failed to each agreement
at a conciliation conference in Limerick on the 1st March and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court investigation was held in Limerick
on the 13th April, 1988, but was adjourned to allow further local
level discussion take place. On the 27th April, the Union
requested a further Court hearing and this was held in Limerick on
the 25th May, 1988.
Claim (a) increase in shift premium from 20% to 25% for 3
cycle shift working.
BACKGROUND:
4. The Union served the claim on behalf of 23 workers mainly
involved in casting and general foundry work. The Company
rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The work is very demanding and performed under extreme
heat. However, these conditions are normal for this type of
work and the Union has little complaint but it believes that
the shift rate of 20% is out of line with present day
standards and it should be increased to 25%.
2. The claimants produce a good product and give full
co-operation to Management. It is their commitment as much as
anything else that attracts customers from other countries.
3. The Union is conscious of the Company's need to be
competitive and that trading can be difficult and therefore
would be prepared to accept the 5% increase in the shift rate
on a phased basis over five years if the Court was to so
recommend.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has rejected this claim as it believes that
the vast majority of employments on three-cycle shift are
paying a premium of 20% or less.
2. In a recent survey in the mid-west region it was found
that shift work was operated in 31 of the 62 firms surveyed.
Of the 31 companies on shift, 11 operated on three-cycle shift
and 8 of these paid 20% or less. Of the three which paid more
than 20% only one was in the process sector. On a national
basis, 75% of the companies surveyed operating three-cycle
shift in the process sector, paid 20% or less.
3. The Labour Court has consistently rejected claims for an
increase in the three-cycle shift premium beyond 20% (details
supplied to the Court).
4. The Company's primary competitors are based in the U.K.,
Germany, Spain and the U.S.A. Shift premia in these countries
range from virtually zero in the U.S. to 10% in Germany and
the U.K. Because of substantial over capacity in the
industry, aluminium die-casting is very competitive with quite
low margins.
Claim (b) increase in the zinc casting rate.
BACKGROUND:
7. The Union served the claim for upgrading the two operators on
the zinc machine as it believes the workers are wrongly graded.
The Company rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The two zinc machine operatives are currently paid grade B
rate which is approximately £14.37 per week lower than the
grade A rate. The only difference between the operations is
that one group use aluminium and the other use zinc.
2. Management has argued that these jobs were evaluated and
were deemed to be less demanding. However this evaluation was
carried out by Management, not independently, and occurred six
years ago in another factory premises. The workers are not
convinced that the operation is correctly graded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. This position is currently in Grade B and there has been
no alteration or change in the job in terms of shift, mental
effort, physical effort, responsibility and working
conditions.
2. The Company is prepared to have the job re-studied and if
necessary have the ITGWU's Industrial Engineer subsequently
participate in a further study.
Claim (c) creation of a new grade of senior inspector.
BACKGROUND:
10. The Union claims that there should be an additional grade to
cater for very sensitive inspection work. The Company rejected
the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. This is a long-running problem which the Company has
refused to deal with, on the basis that it does not have
senior positions in any department and also that it does not
have any inspectors considered to be superior to any other.
The reality is that certain employees working as inspectors
were called upon on occasions to check particular important
orders where the level of faults acceptable to the purchasers
would be very low.
2. On one occasion Management did try to resolve the problem
by agreeing to introduce service pay (for the total staff)
which would benefit some of these workers by £2 per week but
this has not solved the issue.
3. Management should introduce a new grade of senior
inspector with particular duties and responsibilities who
should then be assigned to specific work where the tolerance
of faults is exceptionally low.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. It is the Company's view that there is no justification
for the upgrading of the re-inspection position as there has
been no change in the value of the job since it was first
studied.
2. Account has been taken of the skill, mental and physical
effort, responsibility and working conditions and while
nothing has changed under these headings, neither has the job
value emerged at other than its present level which is Grade
B.
3. The Company is prepared to have the job re-studied and if
necessary have the ITGWU's Industrial Engineer also study the
job. It is confident that the job of re-inspection is
properly graded and that there is no basis for the creation of
a higher level grade which would undoubtedly have relativity
implications within the plant leading to follow on claims from
other categories.
Claim (d) wage increase under Programme for National
Recovery
BACKGROUND:
13. The Union is claiming the full terms of the P.N.R. The
Company considers that it is not in a position to implement the
terms until all outstanding claims are dealt with.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
14. 1. The Union is seeking the full terms of the PNR for the
claimants and rejects any suggestion from Management that any
concessions of the other claims would be paid for by reducing
the payments under the PNR.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
15. 1. The Company is not in a position to concede any increase
which would in total exceed the basic terms of the PNR and
therefore the increase in basic pay is dependent upon the
outcome of the other claims.
2. The Company's current financial position is serious and at
present it can only commit itself to paying the PNR for 12
months with a review of the situation at that time.
16. It was agreed at the hearing that the issues of the zinc
casting rate and the creation of a new grade of senior inspector
would be re-assessed by the Company and the Union's Industrial
Engineer.
RECOMMENDATION:
17. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, recommends as follows:
(A) Shift Rate - No increase in the present
rate of 20%.
(B)/(C) Re-grading - The Court notes the agreement
of the parties to a
re-assessment of the jobs
being carried out by the
Company and the Union's
Industrial Engineer.
(D) National Wage Agreement: The full terms of the
Agreement to be paid from the
expiry of the previous
agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
17th June, 1988 ____________________
D.H./J.C. Deputy Chairman