Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8993 Case Number: LCR12346 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ABS PUMPS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for a 100% increase in the differential rate for 22 setters and programmers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the differentials in question ought
not be dealt with in isolation from the current revision of the
general bonus scheme.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins MR C DEVINE
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8993 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12346
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ABS PUMPS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a 100% increase in the differential rate for 22
setters and programmers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned have a current differential of #10.41
per week over the next lower grade. The Union claims that the
average wage for comparable workers in other employments is
approximately #185 per week while in this Company it is #149. The
Company rejects the claim and states that the average pay for the
workers concerned is #215 per week, this figure however is
inclusive of a productivity bonus. Local discussions failed to
resolve the issue and the dispute was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 20th June, 1988. Conciliation
conferences were held on the 14th July, 1988 and 26th January,
1989 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 15th
February, 1989. A Court hearing was held in Wexford on the 1st
March, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Union referred the claim to the Company in
October 1987 together with other items under the 26th wage
round there was agreement between both parties that the
question of the increase in the differential would be
discussed in isolation to the other issues when wage
negotiations had been finalised. However in April, 1988 when
the Union again raised the issue with the Company, they
rejected the claim without any discussion. Since then they
have refused to actually negotiate the claim despite four
meetings at local level and two conciliation conferences. The
Company have insisted on bringing the restructuring of the
proposed bonus scheme into the talks but the Union will not be
involved in discussions on an issue which will have a major
effect on the pay and conditions of the total workforce.
2. Numerous suggestions and proposals have been put forward
by the Union but the Company has failed to respond. At one
stage the members were so incensed by Management's
intransigence that they changed the claim to one seeking
parity with other setters/operators/programmers on a national
basis. Information supplied by the Union's research
department shows that an average basic rate on a national
basis is #185.28 per week. However it was considered that
this claim was excessive and the Union reverted to the
original claim which amounts to #10.41 per person per week,
excluding bonus or shift payments. The workers concerned in
this claim have given a commitment that set up times would be
reduced substantially if their claim is conceded by the
Company. This reduction in set up time would result in real
financial savings to the Company. Those savings would far
exceed the cost of conceding this claim and would have an
on-going effect. If or when a restructured bonus scheme is
agreed it could only prove to be of further benefit to the
Company.
3. The workers concerned are operating under very difficult
circumstances as some of the machinery is either obsolete or
in dire need of repair and refurbishing. The Union accepts
that the cost of refurbishment is substantial. Should the
Company decide on an investment policy for these machines it
would add to the manual effort and at that stage the
efficiency rate could well eliminate or at least alleviate the
losses being incurred. Co-operation from both sides on this
issue can only result in improved efficiency, output and
productivity thereby securing employment for workers in the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As per the 1988 Agreement (details supplied to the Court)
it is the Company's intention to revise the existing bonus
scheme (setting is presently part of this bonus scheme) and
this revision will be completed by mid 1989. To make an
adjustment of the bonus scheme or the basic pay in the case of
setters, would prejudice the outcome of the revision of the
bonus scheme. To change any current differential would upset
the parity of the negotiated wage structure and thus
automatically give rise to consequential claims from other
sections (semi-skilled, instructors, craft etc) to restore the
balance.
2. The Union's claim is not justified because current
earnings in the Company (details supplied to the Court) are in
excess of earnings in comparable employments. Setters,
although paid on a full time basis are not in fact employed
full time as such. Some setters would spend as little time as
one hour per week on this duty. A current estimate of the
Company's requirement is that eight setters would be needed on
a full time basis. The Company feels that against a
background of negotiations on wage structure parity and a full
revision of the existing bonus scheme, the time is not
opportune to reach a conclusion on this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the differentials in question ought
not be dealt with in isolation from the current revision of the
general bonus scheme.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
11th April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.