Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91117 Case Number: LCR13377 Section / Act: S67 Parties: F.M.C. INTERNATIONAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for a productivity payment for 21 workers in the packing area.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the expiry date of the P.N.R. for the
Company was 28th February, 1991. In those circumstances and
having close regard to the submissions, oral and written, of the
parties, the Court recommends that the matter at issue be
addressed in the context of the negotiations on the implementation
of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which are now
due.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91117 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13377
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: F.M.C. INTERNATIONAL
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a productivity payment for 21 workers
in the packing area.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures pharmaceutical products which are
produced in dried powder form. The workers concerned are engaged
in packing the powder into a range of bags and drums according to
customer demands. The plant operates on a continuous 4 man shift
basis. The Union claims that a productivity payment of 44p per
drum should be paid for each drum filled per shift in excess of
171. The Company rejects the claim. No agreement was reached at
local level discussions and the matter was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 13th July, 1990 at which no agreement was
reached. On the 18th January, 1991 the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the matter in Cork on 13th June, 1991 (the earliest
date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Negotiations take place with the Company at regular
intervals in respect of wages and conditions. After
settlement had been agreed the Company moved to increase
production targets without prior consultation. Since 1985
drumming levels have increased dramatically after every wage
agreement and the workers should receive some extra payment
in recognition of this increased productivity.
2. The 1990 production rate was 171 drums per shift while
the present rate set by the Company is 180 drums per shift.
The increase of 9 drums in the production rate is in
contention at present and the workers are doing this work
under protest.
3. The Union's claim is for a productivity payment which is
not precluded by the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.). The workers concerned have been very
flexible and co-operative with the Company over the years and
the Union's claim is fair and just.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company/Group of Unions Agreement for the period 1st
May, 1989 to 28th February, 1991 provides for co-operation
with improvements and efficiencies in production with no
further cost increasing claims to be served for the duration
of the Agreement. The Union's claim is not in compliance
with this agreement and is in conflict with the provisions of
the P.N.R. in that it is a cost increasing claim.
2. The Company has introduced improved equipment and
methods in order to make the drumming operation less labour
intensive and more productive. Drumming and bagging of
product is a routine part of an operators job and does not
warrant any extra special payments.
3. The Company does not operate productivity payment
schemes. Payments to workers are based on the package
agreement made with the Group of Unions. The integrity of
the agreement must be maintained and to disregard it now
would have considerable adverse effects on orderly industrial
relations.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the expiry date of the P.N.R. for the
Company was 28th February, 1991. In those circumstances and
having close regard to the submissions, oral and written, of the
parties, the Court recommends that the matter at issue be
addressed in the context of the negotiations on the implementation
of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which are now
due.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th August, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman