Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90200 Case Number: LCR12910 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PRINT CRAFT COMPUTER PRINT LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of two workers for the introduction of an additional rate for the operation of new folding machines.
Recommendation:
5. Having heard the submissions of the parties, the Court is not
convinced on the evidence presented that it would be appropriate
to establish a machine rate. However, the Company has proposed to
increase the basic pay of the two operatives and the Court
believes that the offer to the two workers concerned should be
revised to #13 and #15 (#10 and #12), retrospective to 1st pay
week of October, 1989.
The Court so recommends.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90200 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12910
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PRINT CRAFT COMPUTER PRINT LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employees)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of two workers for the
introduction of an additional rate for the operation of new
folding machines.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1989, the Company acquired two new machines, known as
Hand H machines. These machines are in common usage in the
printing industry. The Union claims that the new machines require
the operators to carry out more adjustments and a number of other
functions than were necessary with the old equipment. The new
machines also allow for different methods of production and have
doubled the output. In September, 1989, the Union served a claim
for an increase in rates for the two operators of the machines,
under Clause 11 of the Registered Agreement for the Printing
Industry, which states:-
"11. New Machinery and Devices
The following procedure will be used when new or amended
machinery and devices are introduced that are not covered by
existing agreements:
The organisations concerned shall arrange a joint inspection
within three months of the machine commencing running.
Meantime, pending the inspection and until agreement is
reached, the machine operator shall receive his ordinary
wages. In the event of a higher rate being agreed it will
have retrospective application less any agreed training
period."
The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that on-going
technological change is part and parcel of the industry and
additional payments cannot be made for each change in technology.
As no agreement could be reached locally the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 14th December,
1989. Prior to a conciliation conference held on 21st February,
1990, the Company offered a personal merit payment to the two
workers concerned. The offer was #10 per week for one worker and
#12 per week for the other worker, who is classified as a
supervisor. This offer was rejected by the Union. No agreement
could be reached at the conciliation conference and on 26th April,
1990, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 23rd May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 11 of the Registered Agreement provides for the
pursuit of this claim. The Union believes that the machinery
in question is 'new technology' as envisaged in the Registered
Agreement. It is implicitly recognised in Clause 11 that
benefits of increased productivity should in part accrue to
the workers concerned.
2. The machines in question require more technical
adjustments as part of their normal operation than the old
machines. There are two and a half times as many plates on
the machines. These plates must be lifted and set in place.
All this means that the two operators must work harder at a
higher level of skill.
3. In the majority of companies where similar machines are
in operation the rates paid are far in excess of that being
paid by this Company (details provided to the Court).
4. The Company, by their offer, have recognised that an
extra payment is warranted in this case. The Union does not
accept the sums offered because they are on a personal basis
and would have no application beyond the two workers operating
the machines at this moment, the amount is insufficient and
out of line with that paid in other companies and makes no
provision for retrospection. It was only in anticipation of a
retrospective settlement that the workers undertook to operate
the machines.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is one of the smaller firms involved in the
computer manual printing sector. The market for computer
manuals at the moment is saturated. In order to survive the
Company is making constant efforts to keep up to date with the
best manufacturing practices and equipment.
2. The new equipment has if anything made the operatives
job simpler and less demanding. They are no longer required
to load the machines, whereas with the old machinery they had
to load and take-off. In additional blank sheet detectors
have been installed on both machines to aid in the finding of
blank sheets.
4 3. The Company has offered the two operatives a merit
increase of #10 and #12 respectively. This merit increase is
reflective of the value the Company puts on the two operators.
4. Concession of the claim is unacceptable to the Company
as this would be a recognition that there is some additional
element of productivity involved whereas the job concerned has
in fact become simpler and any extra production capacity is
machine generated.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having heard the submissions of the parties, the Court is not
convinced on the evidence presented that it would be appropriate
to establish a machine rate. However, the Company has proposed to
increase the basic pay of the two operatives and the Court
believes that the offer to the two workers concerned should be
revised to #13 and #15 (#10 and #12), retrospective to 1st pay
week of October, 1989.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
11th June, 1990 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman