Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90229 Case Number: LCR12935 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ACCO IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for a 7.50% productivity payment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the submissions of the
parties does not find grounds for concession of the Union's claim.
However the Court recommends in the light of the agreements on
productivity in other departments, that the parties agree to an
investigation of the work content of the warehouse by an
Industrial Engineer. On completion of the exercise the report of
the Industrial Engineer to be the subject of discussions between
the parties.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90229 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12935
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ACCO IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a 7.50% productivity payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures office requisites and employs
approximately 170 workers. The claim concerns nine workers who
are employed in the warehouse department. Early in 1988 the
Company introduced Manufacture Resource Planning (M.R.P.2.) a
computerised production control system into the warehouse/stores
department. Following negotiations between the Company and the
Union the warehouse workers received an increase of 7.50% on basic
pay in respect of the implementation of new work practices.
Subsequently the Company entered into productivity negotiations
with workers in other sections to increase their basic wages by
7.50%. The Union then submitted another claim for a further 7.50% on
behalf of the warehouse workers on the basis of increased
productivity in the warehouse arising from increased throughput in
the factory. Management rejected the claim. Local discussions
failed to resolve the issue which was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 1st March, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on the 24th April, 1990 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 2nd May, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 18th
June, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Most other departments in the factory have concluded
agreements with Management on productivity and are now
enjoying 7.50% productivity payments on their basic pay. The
workers concerned however have been excluded from negotiations
on productivity and cannot understand why this has happened.
The Union contends that the 7.50% which workers in the warehouse
received was for a completely different issue - M.R.P.2. The
Company must afford the workers employed in the warehouse the
facility to negotiate a productivity agreement similar to
those negotiated in all other departments. Alternatively the
Company could make the 7.50% payment to the workers concerned
for the productivity increases in the warehouse which the
Company enjoys.
2. If it was Management's intention, on foot of the previous
agreement on M.R.P.2, that productivity was part and parcel of
that agreement then they should have said so at the time. It
can clearly be seen from the agreement (details supplied to
the Court) that it was in respect of the new working practices
and not productivity. Productivity was only mentioned by
Management when other workers in the factory agitated for the
increase of 7.50% originally received by the workers concerned
in respect of new work practices.
3. The Union has no objection to an industrial engineer
studying the situation in the warehouse department. However
the Union feels that the type of work being done in that
department is not conducive to an industrial engineer being in
a position to issue a report. Unlike workers employed on
machines, the workers concerned do not have set standards to
work to. The Union has documentation to prove (details
supplied to the Court) that there has been an actual increase
of 12% in throughput in the warehouse in the period ending
December, 1989 and for the comparable period January to June,
1990 that throughput has increased further.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company agreed to implement a 7.50% increase in basic
rates in the store/warehouse area in May, 1988 as a result of
agreed and necessary changes in work practices. This was the
first such increase. The Company subsequently implemented
similar 7.50% increases in basic rates in other departments as a
result of different changes in work practices referred to as
"productivity agreements." These subsequent increases
occurred as a consequence of the first agreement.
2. The Company has no intention of increasing the workload in
any area beyond what can reasonably be achieved by a
"qualified worker" working at normal day rate. In the event
of the workload increasing, whatever extra labour is required
in the area will be allocated. In the event of a claim of
increased workload which is disputed for whatever reason, the
Company will arrange to have such a workload studied
professionally by a suitably qualified third party. There is
no justification for an increase in basic rates where there is
no requirement to work at a level in excess of normal day
rate.
3. The Company does not accept the claim that there has been
an increase in the throughput in the stores/warehouse area.
An analysis of all shipments made in the first quarter of 1990
compared to the same period in 1989 shows that the amount of
pallets shipped was 5% less, and the number of cartons shipped
was 8% less (details supplied to the Court).
4. The workers concerned are well paid in comparison to those
in the same industrial sector and in comparison to those in
the same geographical area. Any increase in rates would
exacerbate a situation where the Company rates are already in
excess of the norms for industry and would serve to make an
already uncompetitive situation even worse. The 7.50% paid to
stores/warehouse personnel was the first in a series of such
increases. The present claim is in effect an attempt to
double up on the original payment and as such is totally
unjustified.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having fully considered the submissions of the
parties does not find grounds for concession of the Union's claim.
However the Court recommends in the light of the agreements on
productivity in other departments, that the parties agree to an
investigation of the work content of the warehouse by an
Industrial Engineer. On completion of the exercise the report of
the Industrial Engineer to be the subject of discussions between
the parties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
10th July, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.