Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87862 Case Number: LCR11738 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BURLINGTON SPORTSWEAR FABRICS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of ten employees, for an increase in the "follow-up" demonstrators' rate of pay.
Recommendation:
5. Having heard the submissions from the parties, the Court does
not consider that the Union has established a case for an increase
in the follow-up demonstrators' present rate. The Court does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87862 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11738
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BURLINGTON SPORTSWEAR FABRICS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of ten employees, for an increase in the
"follow-up" demonstrators' rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates plants at Longford and Tullamore. The
training of employees is carried out by full-time instructors and
secondly by follow-up demonstrators (employees who give on-the-job
training to colleagues) who are paid an allowance at a rate of
4.67% of grade 3 rate, or 16.7p per hour. The claimants in this
case are fixers at the Tullamore plant who are required to give
on-the-job training. In May, 1987 the Company informed the Union
at Tullamore of its intention to instal a new spinning machine and
to utilise the fixers in training personnel on the machine. The
Union sought an increase in remuneration to the fixers but this
was rejected by the Company. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 7th July, 1987. A
conciliation conference held on 15th September, 1987, failed to
resolve the issue and it was referred to a full hearing of the
Labour Court on the 10th November, 1987. The hearing took place
on 17th February, 1988 in Tullamore.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is part of a very successful international
group and is currently engaged in a cost-saving/rationalisation
programme at Tullamore with the full co-operation of the
workforce. The training carried out by follow-up demonstrators
results in considerable cost saving for the Company. There are
only two full-time instructors employed at the Tullamore plant.
The follow-up demonstrators have responsibility for actual
production training and machine and process familiarisation.
2. The allowance paid to follow-up demonstrators was fixed in
a somewhat haphazard manner. It commenced at 7p per hour in
1978 and in 1984 a formula of 4.67% of the grade 3 rate was
applied. The current rate is 16.7p per hour and the Union's
claim is for 10% of the Grade 3 rate.
3. The machinery in question is sophisticated and expensive
and the Union contends that its claim is justified in the light
of the provision of training on such equipment.
3. 4. An improvement in these rates would result in practical
benefits to the Company. The follow-up instructors would be
provided with an incentive to have a positive approach to the
training of other employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The role of the follow-up demonstrator, as its title
implies, is not a full-time instructing position. Payment is
on the basis of assistance to an employee in assimilating the
details of a job and in stamina build up. The Company is
satisfied that the current rate of pay is fair and equitable,
based on the level of responsibility.
2. The current rate was negotiated with the Union's Longford
Branch and subsequently applied at Tullamore. Any alternation
in the rate would have repercussions for full time fixer
instructors at the Company's Longford plant who currently
receive an allowance of 7% of the grade 3 rate.
3. The claim is in breach of the "no cost-increasing claims"
clause of the 26th pay round agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having heard the submissions from the parties, the Court does
not consider that the Union has established a case for an increase
in the follow-up demonstrators' present rate. The Court does not
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
10th March, 1988. Deputy Chairman.
A.K./J.C.