Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89177 Case Number: LCR12351 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for a wage increase for one storesperson.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not find grounds for concession of the Union's claim at
this stage. However, the storeperson's position might be reviewed
again in the light of changes taking place i.e. centralisation and
computerisation of stores.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89177 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12351
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a wage increase for one storesperson.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1988 an agreement was concluded on the introduction
of new equipment in the Finishing Production Department. This
provided that the loading jobs on two of the three machine-based
production operations would be eliminated as a direct result of
the attachment of product transfer units (known as links) between
the machines. As a consequence of the demands of operating the
fully linked machines and the manning level reductions, it was
agreed that the gross 2 shift wage rate would be increased in line
with the phased installation of the fully linked equipment by an
amount of #12 per week at standard performance (details supplied
to the Court). The linking of the hitherto separate items of
production equipment significantly affected the job of the
mechanics in the Finishing Department and after lengthy
negotiations it was agreed that their wages would be increased by
#17.50 per week. Subsequently, the storesperson sought to have
the mechanics' increase applied to him. This was rejected by the
Company and on the 18th January, 1989, the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference on the 9th February and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Tralee on the 5th
April, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This claim is almost identical to a previous claim heard
by the Court (LCR10,769 refers) in which the claimant received
a wage increase of #5 per week. That recommendation was
issued against a background of a rationalisation programme
which took place in the Finishing Department during 1985.
However, the rationalisation programme currently in progress
has more implications for the claimant than the previous one.
During the earlier re-organisation, there were a lot of new
machines installed while others were discarded. On this
occasion however, the number of machines is being increased.
Consequently there is merit in the claim for increased
remuneration for co-operating with on-going changes.
2. At present the claimant is on a basic rate of #201 per
week. This includes an award of #5 made by the Labour Court
in 1979. This was in conjunction with the re-organisation of
the Knitting Room. In 1983 he received an increase of #25
which resulted from the re-organisation of the stores. This
was a self-financing deal which resulted in the loss of one of
the two stores jobs. Since then the claimant has worked alone
in the stores area.
3. As a result of the rationalisation and changes the
claimant will require new skills and knowledge. Furthermore,
the new extra night shift will carry extra work and
responsibilities and following the enormous expansion in
production currently taking place, the proportion of parts and
wear and tear on machines will require extra effort and
attention.
4. The Company has argued that this claim is in breach of the
terms of the Programme for National Recovery. The Union
rejects this. The claim relates to major rationalisation and
there is clear precedent within the Company for both sides to
negotiate where major change occurs (details supplied to the
Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An increase (or decrease) in the variety of parts held has
no affect on the responsibility level of the claimant. He has
substantial responsibility and this is reflected in the size
of the wage increase agreed when the position of technical
storeperson was expanded to that of company storeperson. What
was involved in that re-organisation was not simply an
increase in the variety of parts, but the expansion of the
storeperson's responsibility for storekeeping duties from a
Departmental to a Companywide basis. It should be noted that
the Finishing Parts Store was then the most significant
addition and it is in this area that the increase in the
variety of parts will occur.
4. 2. The Storeperson's workload will not increase as a result
of the increase in the variety of parts. The Company has
already advised that it intends to improve the storekeeping
situation by:-
- centralising the stores by the year-end;
- computerising the spare parts stock control system;
- providing approximately 1-hour per day assistance
additional to the 1-hour per day (maximum 8 hours per
week) assistance currently provided, to compensate
for the increased workload which would otherwise
occur as a result of the computerisation;
- assigning the giving of assistance to one individual
rather than the current system whereby assistance is
provided by one of six Knitting General Utility
personnel on a rotational basis.
3. Labour Court Recommendation No. 10,769 cannot be taken as
a precedent as the circumstances on this occasion are
different due to the action which the Company is taking to
simplify the administration of the stores. In addition it
should be noted that, whereas the claim by the Storeperson in
1986 was exempted from the 'no cost increasing claims' clause
of the Wage Agreement then in force, on this occasion the
claim is not an exempted claim.
4. There has never been any formal or recognised relativity
between the wage level of the Company storeperson and the wage
level of mechanics in the Finishing Department, or the wage
level of other mechanics. The increased remuneration agreed
in respect of the increased job complexity of Finishing
Mechanical personnel was exclusive to finishing mechanics and
has no relativity implications for any other personnel. In
addition it should be noted that the general finishing linking
increase was applicable only to those groups of personnel
specified in the Agreement.
5. This claim is directly contrary to the current Wage
Agreement as it is not an exempted claim and hence is contrary
to the 'no cost increasing claims' clause.