Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89198 Case Number: LCR12336 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WIGGINS TEAPE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Claim on behalf of three workers for an increase of 7.5% for the operation of the 249 envelope making machine.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that neither the introduction of the new
machine or the alterations made to it warrant the payment to the
claimants of an increase in the machine rate. The Court
accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89198 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12336
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WIGGINS TEAPE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of three workers for an increase of 7.5% for
the operation of the 249 envelope making machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is the largest envelope producer in the
country, installed a new envelope folding machine in January,
1987. This machine was the first to have a slightly extended size
range, enabling production up to 16 9/16" x 12". However, because
the printing unit was only capable of printing envelopes up to the
old original dimensions a new printing unit had to be designed by
the manufacturers which arrived in April, 1988. Shortly
afterwards, the Union lodged a claim for a 7.5% increase on behalf
of three of its members involved in the servicing of the machine.
This claim was rejected by the Company and the matter was referred
to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the 21st
September, 1988. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on the 25th October and on the 9th March, 1989,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 15th March, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that in line with accepted practice in
the industry, where alterations are made to machine
specifications which improve either the output or the scope of
the machine, a rate should be struck. The Union is therefore
satisfied that its claim for 7.5% is reasonable.
2. At both local level discussions and at conciliation the
Company refused to negotiate on the issue, saying it was not
prepared to pay any additional money even though it accepted
the Union's argument that the new printing unit allows a
bigger envelope to be printed.
3. 3. The issue before the Court is basically the principle of
seeking an increase in the machine rate. Such issues as bonus
and earnings, which the Company has raised, are not of any
relevance to this claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim presented by the IPU for extra money for
servicing the printing unit on the '249' machine is totally
unrealistic. The Company is aware that such monies are not
paid on any other machine in any comparable plant throughout
Europe.
2. The three workers on whose behalf the claim has been made
are engaged in servicing the printing requirements on all of
the Company's envelope machines. Of the three, two are
engaged full-time on this activity whilst the other is
primarily engaged as a printer on the Company's Heidelberg
press and spends other time available servicing machines in
the envelope department. Accordingly the Union sought payment
of 50% of any agreed rate to him as a retainer.
3. In this case the printer is not the machine operator but
rather puts on the stereo required for a particular job,
services its ink requirements and corrects any problem that
may arise but only when called upon to do so. The Court
should be aware that the routine servicing of ink on this
machine may only take approximately 10 minutes or so.
4. Envelope printing in the main is used for product
identification (under flap) thus encouraging future orders on
the part of the customer which ultimately is the only
guarantee of sustained employment. Concession of claims of
the nature served would only encourage additional and
consequential claims from other unions and would ultimately
erode the Company's competitive edge which is under constant
threat from other low cost producers in the UK and Europe.
5. Up to 70% of the output from the '249' machine does not
carry any print thus confirming that the printing unit is only
in use for 30% of the machine output (details supplied to the
Court).
6. The Company operates a comprehensive bonus system from
which each of the 3 claimants benefit significantly (details
supplied to the Court). The bonus scheme affords a payment of
#9.44p per each one million printing impressions made by each
printing unit, to each of the claimants per week. The Company
has applied this scheme equally to the '249' machine and
average bonus yields to each of these has been considerable
(details supplied to the Court). The Company therefore
strongly argues that the arrangements for payment of bonus
suitably reward the printers for the servicing of the print
unit on the '249' machine which is only required when
operating and that the Union's claim for a special payment in
addition to those currently afforded is unwarranted.
4. 7. This view is vindicated by the fact that in all other
operations of '249' machines throughout Europe a printer is
not required to have an input to the operation of the machine
as the machine operator is responsible for servicing the
printing unit. In the Company's case the operator of the
'249' machine, i.e. the "machine adjuster" is a member of
another union and is a time served engineer.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that neither the introduction of the new
machine or the alterations made to it warrant the payment to the
claimants of an increase in the machine rate. The Court
accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___7th____April,___1989. _______________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman