Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88732 Case Number: LCR12141 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 6 moulding shop fitters for an increase in pay following an increase in workload.
Recommendation:
6. On the basis of the information supplied by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the Union's claim in respect of increased
productivity is not well found and accordingly the Court does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88732 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12141
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 6 moulding shop fitters for an
increase in pay following an increase in workload.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's moulding department is involved in the moulding
of a variety of bottle and jar caps used in the cosmetic industry.
The workers here concerned set up the machines. The machines,
when set up, are intended to run constantly on a 4 shift basis.
The machine operators, who work on shift, carry out minor
alterations, however, when a serious difficulty arises a setter is
called. Setters only work days, therefore, if a machine goes down
at night or on a weekend it is not serviced until a setter is
available. The normal compliment of setters is 5.
3. In April, 1988, the setters entered a productivity claim based
on an increase in the ratio of machines to setters. The Union
pointed out that over the last 3 years, the ratio of machines to
operators has also increased, but that the operators have as a
result received a productivity bonus of #91.77 per week in respect
of operating additional machines. The Company rejected the claim
on the basis that the times involved in setting up the machines
are well fixed and cannot be hurried or improved. The Company
claims that the setters can do no more now than before, therefore,
there is no increased productivity. On 24th August, 1988, the
dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. On 25th August, 1988, the Union informed the Company that
because of the dispute the setters were not agreeable to undertake
any changes or additions to their present work in terms of the
total number of machines or types of machines. On 13th September,
1988, 7 new machines were acquired from the Company's parent
Company. The setters refused to work the new machines.
Subsequent to a conciliation conference held on 15th September,
1988, the Company indicated that a change to the setters' work may
happen if a process of '7-up tooling' can be successfully
developed and implemented. This change could be identified as
productivity and a lump sum payment could be given to the setters.
This approach initially received a positive response, but in the
end came to nothing. On 25th September, 1988, the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 23rd November, 1988, in
Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has conceded increases in pay to the shift
operators for covering for absent operators and for operating
the increased number of machines. The final position for
shift operators is that 3 operators per shift, with 4 on
stand-by operate 75 machines. Their weekly payment of #91.77
has been reduced #35-30 on the basis of #7 per additional
machine but there is also the provision for a lump sum payment
of #637.70 to each of the 9 shift operators. Therefore, they
are effectively paid the #91.77. This arrangement is for 12
weeks from 23rd October, 1988.
2. While the matter was in dispute the Company also changed
the setters manning levels by appointing 2 shift operators as
setters operating on days but in receipt of their shift
premium. This brought the number of setters to 6 but and was
quickly brought back to 5 again when one of the shift
operators returned to his former job.
3. The manning arrangements for the setters have fluctuated
from an initial ratio of one setter to 12 machines to one to
17, down to one to 11 and back to one to 16 currently.
4. Given that the setters basic pay rate is only slightly
higher than that of the operators, the #7.00 per additional
machine would be an appropriate payment in respect of each of
the additional machines involved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Setting up a machine takes a certain amount of time and in
a normal day only a certain number of machines can be set up.
This is the case regardless of the number of machines
available for set up. The trend in the Company's business in
1988, has been towards larger orders, longer production runs
and thus, fewer set ups. It is conceivable that all machines
could be set up in January, and run for 6 months without
changing.
2. The 7 new machines bring the total number of machines to
82. The Company accepts that there may be an initial hurdle
in bringing the new machines into the operation, but it
completely rejects the idea that once the new machines are 'in
the system,' there is any ongoing extra workload for the
setters since the number of set ups is not a function of the
number of machines, unlike the shift operatives whose work
involves the loading and unloading of machines, quality
checks, machine adjustments etc... The shift operatives work
is in direct proportion to the number of machines.
3. The Company has indicated to setters that in the event of
genuine productivity issues arising the Company will be
prepared to discuss them. The Company has also indicated that
if '7-up tooling' can be developed a once-off lump sum payment
can be discussed.
4. To concede to the claim would establish a situation
whereby other categories can justifiably put forward invalid
claims, engage in unofficial industrial action, and expect to
be paid an increase. Of itself, and regardless of the above,
concession of the claim would bring about 'knock on' claims
from other groups which the Company cannot afford. It would
also expose the Company to further claims on any occasions
when new machines are brought into the plant.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. On the basis of the information supplied by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the Union's claim in respect of increased
productivity is not well found and accordingly the Court does not
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
28th November, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.