Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90341 Case Number: LCR13004 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HALLMARK CARDS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of 3 general hand on operatives on Grade 4 for the payment of a 4% differential for operating motorised pallet trucks.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that nothing has changed which would warrant a
change in the existing grading structure and clearly since that
structure supercedes specific differentials which maybe negotiated
by the Printing Trade it seems clear that the Union's claim is not
sustainable. The Court therefore does not recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90341 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13004
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: HALLMARK CARDS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 3 general hand on operatives on Grade 4 for
the payment of a 4% differential for operating motorised pallet
trucks.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards Incorporated,
Kansas City, U.S.A. and exports all its products to U.K. and the
Continent of Europe. The Irish operation was set up in 1959 and
currently employs 320 people. A further 100 people approximately
are directly employed on Hallmark work by various local suppliers.
The workers concerned operate motorised pallet trucks.
3. The current warehouse, goods-receiving and dispatch functions
have been in operation since 1981. Fourteen people are employed
in the department. The warehouse is fitted with high density
racking, serviced by two turret trucks, each having its own
driver. Stock movement within the areas and to the production
floor is performed by the three workers concerned using stand on
motorised pallet trucks. When the department was set up the
structure and pay grades were applied which gave the turret truck
drivers Grade 1 and the general hands Grade 4. The Company pay
scale consists of two craft and 7 non-craft grades. Within each
grade there are several functions (details supplied to the Court).
4. In February, 1990 the Union lodged a claim on behalf of
workers concerned for the payment of a 4% differential of their
basic on the basis that it would be in line with the Irish
Printing Federation (I.P.F.) Agreement covering the operation of
forktrucks. The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that as
it was not a member of I.P.F., it was not party to that Agreement
and that the present wage rates and grading structure were covered
by its own Company/Union comprehensive agreement. As no agreement
was reached at local level the issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 4th April, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on 5th June, 1990. As no
agreement was reached the parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 10th August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company is out of line with the printing industry
generally in not paying the 4% differential, to authorised
pallet truck drivers. In rejecting the claim the Company
argued that it was not a member of the I.P.F. However in the
past the Company have conceded fringe benefits which were
implemented by the I.P.F. e.g. 39 hour week.
2. When the grading structures in the warehouse were set up
in 1981 the motorised pallet trucks were not in operation.
They were not introduced until 1983.
3. The differential was introduced in recognition of the
skill, expertise and knowledge which is required to operate
motorised pallet trucks. The Court is asked to recognise
these skills by recommending concession of the Union's claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company is not a member of the I.P.F. and therefore
not party to any I.P.F. agreements. It has its own procedural
agreement which has served both the Company and the group of
unions well since its inception in December, 1981. The
Company also has its own pay structure which has been agreed
and accepted by all unions.
2. The plant procedural agreement to which all unions are
signatories, which was drawn up subsequent to the commencement
of the warehouse operation and the operation of pallet trucks
states that "During the lifetime of this agreement no claim of
a cost increasing nature will be submitted by the signatory
Trade Unions or their members". This agreement allows for
adjustments in rates of pay "where changes introduced require
significant additional skills on the part of employees and
result in substantial and measurable productivity". This does
not apply in this case.
6. 3. To concede this claim would be in breach of the Programme
for National Recovery. It would also almost certainly result
in numerous relativity claims, as similar claims for upgrading
have been rejected in the past.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that nothing has changed which would warrant a
change in the existing grading structure and clearly since that
structure supercedes specific differentials which maybe negotiated
by the Printing Trade it seems clear that the Union's claim is not
sustainable. The Court therefore does not recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
__3rd__September,__1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman