Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88942 Case Number: LCR12243 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DRAMMOCK LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 30 workers concerning pay rates.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that the Company faced a serious market challenge
which was exacerbated by problems in their own quality control.
This required a more professional and expert approach to quality
control which resulted in initiating new quality control jobs.
These new jobs were filled by recruitment from the existing
workforce and were outside the existing grading structure. Other
jobs in the Company were not affected by those appointments and
the Court is of the view that concession of the Union's claim
would not be justified in all the circumstances.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88942 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12243
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DRAMMOCK LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 30 workers concerning pay
rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union claims that in 1986, the quality control staff and
the packers were on much the same rate. However, since then the
quality control staff received 2 increases, (#12.66 in January,
1987, and #10 in March, 1988), and now had a differential of
approximately #23. The Union claims that this has caused
dissension among the workforce and requested that the previous
well established, relativities between the 4 grades employed in
the Company, be restored. The Company rejected the claim arguing
that the quality control job had been completely changed in early
1988, when a new job profile had been drawn up and new
appointments had been made at a higher rate than previously. The
differential given in January, 1987, also resulted from a change
in the nature of the quality control job. The Company also argued
that the terms of the Programme for National Recovery precluded
any cost increasing claims. As agreement could not be reached at
local level the matter was referred on 15th November, 1988, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference on 1st December, 1988, and on
9th December, 1988, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 9th January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not negotiate the special increases
directly with the Union. It is unwise to by-pass the formal
negotiating machinery.
2. In late 1988, the Company informed the storemen that their
work was of equal value to quality control work. The
operators have accepted additional technical aspects to their
machines, as well as accepting a 50% reduction in operators
per machine. However, in both these cases the Company has
said that no increases could be given as they were precluded
under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery.
3. The packers differential vis-a-vis the other grades has
disimproved by over #20 per week since 1985. As a result of
the Company's actions, dissension has been created among the
workforce. The Union claims that the differentials be
restored, on a phased basis if necessary.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The terms of the Programme for National Recovery were
agreed and implemented from 1st August, 1988. The terms of
the programme were to be applied on the existing basic for a
period of 3 years, and there were to be no cost increasing
claims for the duration of the agreement.
2. Until January, 1987, all packers involved themselves in
the quality control function in rotation. As a result of
on-going problems with product quality, the Company decided to
designate specific employees to operate a more formal quality
control function. This attracted a packers wage rate plus a
differential of #12.66.
3. Further dissatisfaction arose in relation to the quality
control function. Complaints were received both from
customers and staff. It was agreed at that stage that the
quality control function would be totally re-organised and
interviews would be held to make new appointments.
4. In line with the re-organisation and re-evaluation of the
function, the differential was increased by a further #10. At
all times the shop stewards were kept informed.
5. The new rates were introduced in line with the new job
profile in the quality control area. The re-evaluation of the
function did not affect any of the other areas and thus there
is no basis for a claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that the Company faced a serious market challenge
which was exacerbated by problems in their own quality control.
This required a more professional and expert approach to quality
control which resulted in initiating new quality control jobs.
These new jobs were filled by recruitment from the existing
workforce and were outside the existing grading structure. Other
jobs in the Company were not affected by those appointments and
the Court is of the view that concession of the Union's claim
would not be justified in all the circumstances.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_____________________
31st January, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.