Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90116 Case Number: LCR12873 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ODLUMS GROUP LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A claim on behalf of 7 millmen employed at Portarlington for the restoration of a pay relativity.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not find grounds for concession of the Union's claim.
The Court concurs with the view expressed by the Company that the
workers concerned perceive that an anomaly exists.
The Court recommends that the parties discuss this matter with a
view to seeking an acceptable basis through productivity to
resolve the issue.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90116 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12873
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ODLUMS GROUP LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim on behalf of 7 millmen employed at Portarlington for
the restoration of a pay relativity.
BACKGROUND:
2. Odlums Limited Portarlington, Co. Laois, is involved in the
flour milling industry and one of three flour mills in the Odlum
Group. The Company employs approximately 31 workers on the
production and packaging side and 13 engaged in transport.
3. Over recent years the industry has undergone total
rationalisation and reorganisation. In 1982 the Company
introduced shrink wrap and two workers got an increase of #10 a
week approximately. This increase gave them near parity with the
mill men. The Union subsequently lodged a claim for the
restoration of parity. The claim was the subject of local
discussions and was referred to the Joint Industrial Council. The
Company introduced major proposals for rationalisation and
reorganisation and the claim was held in abeyance while the
Company's proposals were being dealt with.
4. The matter was again raised at Joint Industrial Council level
where it was agreed to refer the claim back to local level for
discussion. A meeting was held between the parties on 20th
September, 1989 at which no progress was possible. The claim was
then referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
27th September, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on 30th
January, 1990. As no agreement was possible the parties
subsequently consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
10th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Traditionally the skills and overall responsibilities of
the workers concerned were recognised by the #10 differential
over all other groups within the plant. The Union is seeking
to have the status quo maintained in this case.
2. In rejecting the claim the Company has stated that the
workers here concerned were part of a productivity deal of
#13.50 a week. However the productivity deal extends to all
operatives in the plant and was received in return for greater
flexibility and increased workload resulting from 21 jobs
reductions.
3. The workers have been most patient and reasonable over the
years since 1985. They have taken on extra production lines,
extra duties and co-operated with the introduction of new
technology in spite of managements negative attitude to the
claim. The same categories of workers in both the Dublin and
Cork Mills continue to hold this unique rate.
4. The Company seem to fear that there will be repercussive
claims. However the Union does not believe this to be the
case as it is generally agreed among the workers that a lot of
responsibility lies with the mill men who are at the core of
the operation. The whole process begins in this area and
these men play a major role in keeping production and output
to the maximum.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Since 1978 significant change has taken place both within
categories and throughout the mill. Productivity agreements
involving substantial redundancies and increased work loads
within categories took place leading to rate increases.
2. In 1983/1984 new shrink wrap machinery was introduced into
the packing area, leading to increased productivity, new
working practices and a number of redundancies. As a result
the packing machines men rate was increased to the packing
supervisors rate which was also the same as the millmen's
rate.
3. The Company has consistently rejected the millmens' claim
that their rate be increased to create the same differential
that existed in 1978. The difference in rate that existed in
1978 was not an established or agreed differential it was
merely a difference in rate. This difference was eliminated
by way of a productivity agreement.
4. Concession of this claim would lead to an industrial
relations nightmare whereby each category within the Company
would re-examine the differentials that existed in 1978 and
seek to re-establish it. However since this date other
categories have negotiated increased rates as a result of
productivity and they would seek to maintain these new
relative rates to other grades.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not find grounds for concession of the Union's claim.
The Court concurs with the view expressed by the Company that the
workers concerned perceive that an anomaly exists.
The Court recommends that the parties discuss this matter with a
view to seeking an acceptable basis through productivity to
resolve the issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
25th May, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.