Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8884 Case Number: LCR11925 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NATIONAL INDUSTRIES (I) P.L.C. - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for compensation on behalf of a worker arising from a reduction in manning on a machine.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties and also the documentation furnished in connection with
the case does not recommend concession of the claim for
compensation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8884 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11925
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NATIONAL INDUSTRIES (I) P.L.C.
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation on behalf of a worker arising from a
reduction in manning on a machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1983, the Company proposed that the Dimeco Rollforming Line
would be a one person operation. Originally three persons worked
on the machine and for the past seven or eight years it has been a
two person operation. Eventually as part of a self-financing 27th
Wage Round agreement between the Company and the Union it was
agreed to change a number of work practices. Clause 10 of the
Agreement states "it is agreed that the Dimeco Rollforming Line
will be operated by one person".
3. The Union contend that it advised the Company during
negotiations that the inclusion of this clause was not acceptable
and that the issue would be referred to a third party. In view of
the Company's anxiety to retain the clause the Union accepted the
suggestion in good faith assuming it was motivated by internal
Company politics.
4. A trial period commenced on 4th November, 1987, for two weeks
in which it was found to be feasible to operate the machine with
one person. The worker concerned refused to operate the machine
on an on-going basis until the question of compensation had been
resolved.
5. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 1st December, 1987. A Conciliation Conference was
held on 16th December, 1987. As no agreement was possible both
parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. During the intervening period it was agreed
that both parties would accept the Courts recommendation. The
Union intended that it qualified its agreement on the basis that
the case would be decided on its merits and not by reference to
Clause 10 of the 27th Wage Round Agreement. A Court hearing was
held on 18th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The line which is effectively a multi function machine
forms and shapes sheet steel to produce parts for the
Company's range of fluorescent lighting. The operation of
the machine requires a high degree of skill and carries
responsibility for the finished product (details supplied to
the Court).
2. What is now being proposed is that the second person
would be taken off and the worker concerned would take over
his duties. This would represent a huge increase in
productivity which the Company is not prepared to pay for.
This runs counter to all normal industrial relations
practices.
3. The savings to the Company would be in excess of £10,000
and in accordance with normally accepted practice part of
these savings should be shared with the worker who is taking
on the extra workload. The worker currently carries the
senior charge hand rate of £174 per week. The next highest
rate within the Company is that of lead hand (£206.63 per
week). The Union is satisfied that this rate is the minimum
which should apply in this case. Should the Company consider
that the application of this rate would upset the overall
wage structure, the Union is prepared to consider the payment
of a once off lump sum.
4. The Union is satisfied that its willingness to accept the
proposed one man operation in this case represents a very
positive contribution towards the viability of the lighting
division and finds the Company's refusal to consider the
claim for additional remuneration to be unreasonable and not
conducive to the negotiation of other changes in the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The change in question is covered by an agreement reached
with the Union as part of a self-financing 27th Wage Round.
All other items contained in this agreement have been
implemented without additional compensation.
2. The operator is already being paid in excess of the rate
for a Grade 1 operator. As part of a 1980 re-organisation he
retained his senior chargehand rate of pay despite the fact
that he is performing work of a Grade 1 operator.
3. The Company has invested heavily in new plant and
machinery since 1980 (approximately £2m.). Major changes
have been accepted by the workforce without compensation
being conceded by the Company other than by means of general
wage increases.
4. The knock-on effect of concession of this claim would be
considerable.
5. Since 1982 the Company has incurred serious losses
(details supplied to the Court). The division in which this
operation is located is the major contributor to these
losses.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties and also the documentation furnished in connection with
the case does not recommend concession of the claim for
compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th June, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman