Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91272 Case Number: LCR13382 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 2 maintenance craftsmen for a pay increase for new technology.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made the Court is satisfied
that the Unions claim does not accord with the underlying
intention of both parties in the 1989 agreement. The Court in the
circumstances recommends that the Banks offer be accepted.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91272 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13382
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 2 maintenance craftsmen for a
pay increase for new technology.
BACKGROUND:
2. Maintenance craftsmen are responsible for the maintenance of
the Bank's plant and equipment. The Union has claimed that a
higher rate of pay should attach to the two craftsmen concerned
(one fitter and one electrician) who maintain new note processing
machines. The craftsmen were traditionally paid at the rate of a
number 2 printer. In 1982/83 the number 2 printers received a 6%
increase. This was not passed onto the craftsmen (L.C.R. 7840
refers). As a result the Union informed the Bank that it would
not co-operate with the installation or working of new equipment
pending an agreement on its operation. In 1989, the Bank
introduced significant new plant in the form of note processing
machines. Following negotiations agreement was reached whereby
all craftsmen received a 6% increase with effect from 1st April,
1989, and a 'Common Job Description for craftsmen' was agreed.
The Common Job Description provided for:
"4. Installing and commissioning of new equipment as required
by management.
5. Maintaining and running of new equipment as required by
management."
Agreement was also reached whereby:
"The Bank will review periodically the level of skill and
expertise by the craftsmen in relation to new technology.
The Bank accepts that, if certain individuals develop and
apply skills that are significantly above average in this
area, the review process will give favourable consideration
to appropriate adjustment in their pay. The first such
review shall take place by end 1990 at the latest."
3. The two craftsmen concerned were selected in early 1990, to
undertake specialist training for maintenance of the new note
processing machines. In early 1991, a review was undertaken, as
per the agreement, and the Bank offered a 6% increase which would
put the two craftsmen concerned on the working chargehand rate
from 31st December, 1990, in recognition of the above average
skills they had acquired and were employing. This was rejected by
the Union which claimed a 25% increase for the craftsmen
concerned. Agreement could not be achieved locally and on 3rd
February, 1991, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference held on 4th April, 1991, and on 22nd May, 1991, the
Commission referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
matter on 14th June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The craftsmen concerned undertook a comprehensive training
course, both on site and in Germany, to enable them to carry
out maintenance work on the note processing machines. The
work involved for each craftsman is considerable.
(i) Repairing all mechanical, electrical and electronic
faults. A good knowledge of electronics is required
as the microprocessor based system has to be
integrated via the integration test system on the
machine.
(ii) Monitoring of machines to ensure satisfactory
performance during production.
(iii) Periodic complete overhauls of the eight note
processing machines.
(iv) Monitoring of spare parts and ordering same when
necessary.
(v) Responsible for the running and maintenance of the
Briquetting Press and vacuum transport system used
to dispose of the shreddings.
This is a multi-skilled function that deserves a considerable
increase in the rate of pay.
2. The craftsmen concerned should be redesignated as
technicians and receive a 25% increase in recognition of their
unique skills. There will be no consequential claims by the
other craftsmen. The increase should be paid retrospective to
March, 1990, the date when co-operation with the new machines
was extended. It should be noted that the general operatives
employed on the note processing machines received an increase
of 14% and a #1,000 lump sum payment.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Bank has always made it clear that it was not prepared
to attach a pay differential to any specific machine or duty.
Neither during the 1989 negotiations nor in the negotiations
on the review, did the Bank consider or accept that a 'machine
differential' could apply to specific craftsmen, particularly
in the context of the Common Job Description. Rather, it was
agreed that additional skills acquired would be examined and
if appropriate, an increase applied to those craftsmen
employing these additional skills.
2. The Bank recognises that the 'additional skills' acquired
by the craftsmen concerned are being employed satisfactorily
and has as a result offered an increase of 6%. In arriving at
this offer the Bank had to take cognisance of the pay
structure in the Maintenance Section. The differential
applying to working chargehand over craftsmen is 6% and any
increase on the Bank's offer would have repercussions insofar
as this differential would be overturned. The 6% increase
would place the two craftsmen on the working chargehand rate
and in recognition of this the Bank was prepared to regrade
them as working chargehands. This offer is both generous and
equitable in the context of pay structures within the Bank.
3. The 6% increase was offered to the craftsmen concerned on
an on-going basis despite the fact that they share the
maintenance of the note processing machines on a 50/50 basis.
The maintenance is rotated between them on four-weekly cycles.
The only exception is the general servicing of the machines
which is done 3 times per year and takes approximately 3
weeks. In effect, the cost of the 6% offer is 12% since most
of the time only one craftsman is required at any one time.
4. The Bank could not accept that the review mechanism would
result in increases which would prove unsustainable both from
a pay structure and cost point of view. The Bank confirms its
commitment to a mechanism which would periodically assess the
impact of acquired and employed additional skills on the rates
of pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made the Court is satisfied
that the Unions claim does not accord with the underlying
intention of both parties in the 1989 agreement. The Court in the
circumstances recommends that the Banks offer be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
19th August, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.