Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90228 Case Number: LCR12911 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CELMAC (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims by the Union for:- (i) Free issue of additional protective clothing and boots. (ii) Guarantee of payment of average bonus to moulders from the colour shop.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties,
oral and written makes the following recommendations.
1. Protective Clothing
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
2. Average Bonus
(a) Employee moving from one piece to another piece (time for
familiarisation).
The Court recommends the Company proposals be amended to
read as follows:
Average piece rate earnings apply where an employee
who moves from one piece to another piece receives
his average bonus earnings in the previous 13 weeks
while becoming familiar with the new piece. The
selection of moulders for any job/piece will be at
the sole discretion of the supervisor. Where a
moulder is moved from one job piece he will receive
average bonus, defined by the 13 week period
immediately prior to the change in job, for a period
of one week (40 hours) or the bonus payable in
respect of the performance level achieved whichever
is the greater.
(b) Employee moving from one piece to another piece as a
consequence of lay off.
(i) Employee to be paid average earnings as calculated
in (a) above for a period of one month subject to
the average production of the Department during the
four weeks prior to the lay off being achieved.
(ii) The payment of 75% of average earnings or piece
rate earnings whichever is the greatest for a
further period of 1 month subject to average
production level of the Department during the four
weeks prior to the lay off being achieved.
(iii) Thereafter piece rate to apply.
The Court further recommends that the period from February to the
date of acceptance of the recommendation be considered as meeting
the requirements under (b) (i) and (ii) above.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90228 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12911
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CELMAC (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union for:-
(i) Free issue of additional protective clothing and boots.
(ii) Guarantee of payment of average bonus to moulders from
the colour shop.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute involves approximately 37 workers who are employed
at the Company's plant in Wicklow which manufactures rigid plastic
toilet seats mostly for export. These claims were discussed at
local level and at a conciliation conference held on the 3rd May,
1990. As no agreement could be reached the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on the 9th May, 1990. A Court hearing was
held on the 22nd May, 1990.
Claim (i) Protective Clothing: Presently the Company issues
protective clothing to the workers concerned as follows; chrome
leather cotton backed gloves, heavy cotton aprons, and face masks
on a free issue basis. Boots are issued on a deferred payment
basis at cost price to packing and assembly workers. The Union is
claiming that the Company supply additional protective clothing
and free footwear. Management has rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The nature of the working environment is such as to
justify the Union's claim. There have been ongoing problems
in relation to dust and holes in the floor, as a result of
which a moulder recently injured his foot. Sufficient
protective clothing and footwear is extremely important given
the nature of the Company's operation. Many insurance claims
have had to be met in respect of injuries sustained in the
course of employees' work. This situation obviously impacts
on the Company's insurance premium which is an ongoing cost.
The extra insurance cost would be better directed to
prevention and in this regard it is an accepted fact that
adequate protective clothing and footwear do help to prevent
serious injury.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. The Company already issues sufficient protective clothing
to the workers concerned and is not prepared to pay for
additional clothing and footwear. The Company has operated
for the past 25 years without the additional clothing and sees
no grounds for its introduction now. The present issue to
workers is adequate. Should the workers concerned require
additional protective clothing the Company has already offered
to make such clothing available on a deferred payment basis at
cost, the same offer also applies to footwear.
Claim 2 Average Bonus
Background:
The Company has always applied the average pay system to moulders.
A piece rate system applies in the moulding area whereby workers
can enhance their earnings, depending on their output. The
moulding area is divided into two sections, the colour and black
areas. The colour area has far higher earning potential than the
black area and a seniority system applies whereby the more senior
workers can claim jobs with the highest earning potential. In
February, 1990, due to a reduction in demand, the Company cut back
substantially on its colour production. As a result approximately
14 workers were displaced from colour to the black moulding area.
The Company sought that the workers concerned would transfer to
the black shop on the piece rate values that apply there. This
was rejected by the Union which claims that the workers concerned
are entitled to retain the average earnings which they had enjoyed
in the colour shop. Historically a system of average has applied
in the Company whereby individual workers are paid their average
pay for a period of time when they move from one moulding press to
another while they become familiar with the new moulding press.
The Company has raised the issue of averages with the Union and it
has been a source of conflict over the years, including two
disputes in 1989. As a result of local discussions between the
parties the Company tabled proposals on the average/piece
rate/hours system in a letter to the Unions dated 14th February,
1990 (details attached as Appendix A). These proposals were
rejected by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The system of paying average earnings is well established
in the Company, and it was always accepted that where moulders
were moved from one piece to another, in certain circumstances
protection of earnings was essential. The issue of average
earnings is not confined to moulders in the colour shop. It
embraces every moulder in the Company from time to time and is
there by virtue of the piece rate wages structure as agreed.
In discussions with Management it became obvious that their
only interest was the elimination of the guarantee of average
payments. The Company was not prepared to consider
compensation to workers for loss of earnings.
2. The whole concept behind the payment of average system was
the protection of the moulders earnings in any situation where
they could not attain the target numbers agreed e.g. being
placed on untimed pieces, being moved from the colour to black
shop, being placed on a lesser earning piece and not being
able to achieve targets, being moved from the black to the
colour shop and not being able to achieve target figures on
the piece concerned.
3. The Company's proposal on average earnings was rejected by
the Union because
- There is an agreed and established practice of paying
average in the Company.
- There are too many factors outside the control of the
moulder which can adversely impact on production of
pieces.
- The Company proposals provided for the selection of
moulders for a job/piece to be at the sole discretion of
Management. This would eliminate the principle of
seniority.
- The proposal would establish a 4 grade structure for the
moulding section.
- There is ample provision in the existing agreement for the
timing of pieces and the setting of price per piece. This
provides for a joint examination of timing.
5. The workers concerned are vehemently opposed to any
interference with the average system. The Union has entered
into agreement with the Company on a methodology for pricing
and timing pieces (details supplied to the Court), and this
must be seen as a genuine attempt to be responsible in this
matter. The system of timing and pricing pieces will assist
in reducing the occasions where average would be paid. It is
important to look at the price per piece and compare it to the
sale price for many which the Company enjoys. The price the
moulder gets per piece is obvious in the wage structure. The
Company however obtains as much as #20 per piece in sale
value.
6. The Company's wages structure, as indeed the agreements
relating thereto, are governed by the Programme for National
Recovery. The purpose of the programme is to protect
employment, jobs, and where possible create an environment for
new jobs. Wages are an integral part of any job and therefore
enjoy the same protection afforded to the job under the
provisions of the P.N.R. As the payment of average earnings
is an integral part of the wage structure, it too must be
protected.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In the last year the Company has experienced difficulties
in the market place as a result of increased competition,
reduction in demand and the sterling factor; price competition
is a particular concern for the Company as its production
costs in Wicklow are high. In order to compete with the U.K.
market, the Company's principal market, its production costs
should in fact be lower to allow for transport costs to the
U.K. market. As a result of market difficulties the numbers
in employment in the Company have reduced from an average of
119 to 94. This number may be further reduced in the future.
2. Presently, there are 14 colour shop moulders who as a
result of serious market conditions and a lack of work have
been transferred into the black shop while their black shop
union colleagues have been laid off. It is completely
inconsistent that the colour shop moulders should claim a
right to work in the black shop displacing workers in this
area and at the same time claim an entitlement to maintain
average earnings which they enjoyed in the colour shop. One
of the reasons the earnings are so high in the colour shop is
loosely timed values for piece rates on a number of key
presses.
3. The transfer of the workers concerned to the black shop on
average has led to two problems. One is that because the
workers are on average their rate of production in the black
shop is considerably down on what it was previously. Taking a
representative sample of operatives average production is down
23.4% in the black shop over what it was with the same workers
previously when averages did not apply. The Company is
therefore losing almost quarter of the production it should
have. The second problem is that not only is the Company
losing 23.4% of its production, but it is paying a rate for
this lower level of production that is substantially in excess
of what should be paid. The Company is paying #714.54 extra
per week on bonus on the average system in excess of what
should be applying for the levels of output in the black shop.
This represents a sum of #51.03 per week on average to each of
the 14 workers concerned.
4. A further group of 10 moulders had been moved back from
the colour shop to the black shop (from whence they came)
prior to the 14 mentioned above. These 10 were in the
familiarisation process of transferring to appropriate piece
rates when the 14 were moved from colour to black. The entire
familiarisation exercise was then subverted. The additional
total cost of these 10 is #510.30 p.w. to give a total
additional labour cost of #1,224.84 p.w. It is irrefutable
that this situation cannot continue without the gravest of
circumstances to all concerned.
5. The position which has been maintained by the Union and
the workers concerned i.e. the application of average on a
group basis as outlined above is totally inconsistent and at
variance with the custom and practice that applied to average
and group situations in the past. The last occasion when
there was a similar displacement of operatives from the colour
shop was in July, 1977. On that occasion due to a fall-off in
demand there was no work for approximately 11 moulders in the
colour shop. These workers were given 2 options, either to be
laid-off or to accept work in the black shop at the piece
rates that applied. All 11 of the workers applied to transfer
to the black shop at the piece rates that applied. A copy of
the factory notice that applied at the time is supplied for
the Court's information.
6. As a result of the failure of the Union to abide by the
established custom and practice to discuss in a reasonable
fashion the situation that should apply when workers transfer
from colour to black on a group basis, the Company stands to
lose in excess of #175,000 p.a. through over payment and loss
of production. The Company is seeking that from an immediate
date the average earnings would cease and that the period from
February to this date should be viewed as a phasing down
period.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties,
oral and written makes the following recommendations.
1. Protective Clothing
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
2. Average Bonus
(a) Employee moving from one piece to another piece (time for
familiarisation).
The Court recommends the Company proposals be amended to
read as follows:
Average piece rate earnings apply where an employee
who moves from one piece to another piece receives
his average bonus earnings in the previous 13 weeks
while becoming familiar with the new piece. The
selection of moulders for any job/piece will be at
the sole discretion of the supervisor. Where a
moulder is moved from one job piece he will receive
average bonus, defined by the 13 week period
immediately prior to the change in job, for a period
of one week (40 hours) or the bonus payable in
respect of the performance level achieved whichever
is the greater.
(b) Employee moving from one piece to another piece as a
consequence of lay off.
(i) Employee to be paid average earnings as calculated
in (a) above for a period of one month subject to
the average production of the Department during the
four weeks prior to the lay off being achieved.
(ii) The payment of 75% of average earnings or piece
rate earnings whichever is the greatest for a
further period of 1 month subject to average
production level of the Department during the four
weeks prior to the lay off being achieved.
(iii) Thereafter piece rate to apply.
The Court further recommends that the period from February to the
date of acceptance of the recommendation be considered as meeting
the requirements under (b) (i) and (ii) above.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
14th June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.
APPENDIX A
COMPANY PROPOSALS
1. Average/Piece Rate/Bonus
The methodology for establishing the correct piece rate times
has been agreed and accepted as per the Company's minutes of
the meeting on the 5th February, 1990. The timing of a number
of relatively new pieces will commence forthwith in accordance
with this procedure.
As you are aware the Company feel that piece rate/bonus system
is operating on a costly and inefficient basis in a number of
areas. The Company believe that a number of the existing
rates are loose and inaccurate and need to be re-timed.
However, subject to agreement on a procedure for averages as
outlined below the Company does not see an urgent need to
re-time the existing or old piece rates with the exception of
the 25A, this would be re-timed forthwith in accordance with
the procedure/methodology for timing pieces already agreed.
Any necessity for consequential adjustments will be
implemented.
2. Average Earnings
Average piece rate earnings apply where an employee who moves
from one piece to another piece receives his average bonus
earnings in the previous 13 weeks while becoming familiar with
the new piece. The following procedure will apply in future.
The selection of molders for any job/piece will be at the sole
discretion of the supervisor. Where a molder is moved from
one job/piece he will receive average bonus, defined by the 13
week period immediately prior to the change in job, in
accordance with the following chart:-
AVERAGE EARNINGS
TYPE OF MOULDER DURATION OF AVERAGE
A. Superskilled defined as 4 hours
having worked for 480 hours
or more on the piece in
question during the previous
3 years.
B. Skilled defined as having 8 hours
worked for 240 hours or more
on the piece in question
during the previous 3 years.
C. Semi-skilled as above with 16 hours
100 hours or more in
previous 3 years.
D. Unskilled defined as having 40 hours
worked for less than 100
hours on the piece in
question in the previous 3
years.
If the employee has worked all or part of the hours in the
period before 3 years previously then the employee drops a
category from superskilled (a) to skilled (b) or from
semi-skilled (c) to unskilled (d).
3. Procedure for payment of shop stewards and attendance at
meetings.
Authorised local union representatives will have no loss of
basic pay while attending approved company union meetings
during normal working hours. No payment will be made for
hours outside of normal working hours and representatives on
shifts will be facilitated where possible and necessary in the
rescheduling of shifts to allow attendance at approved company
union meetings, without affecting the employee attendance at
work.
Authorised union representation will be defined as follows
Collective issues - 1 local representative for shift
employees, plus 1 local representative for day employees, plus
the union official, as appropriate.
Shift or day issues - 1 appropriate shift representative or 1
appropriate day representative as dictated by the issue, with
the union official as appropriate.
Individual issues - 1 appropriate local union representative
(either shift or day) and the individual concerned with the
union official as appropriate.
4. Absenteeism Procedure
In view of the continuing high levels of absenteeism, it is
necessary to agree and implement the attached absenteeism
procedure, without delay.