Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9151 Case Number: LCR13311 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ORAL B LABORATORIES - and - NATIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning late shift premium and project work.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the claim of the Union in respect of a
shift premium has been outstanding for some considerable time and
that the lack of a conclusion on this claim together with the
delay in respect of an outcome to discussions on the Craft
Development Programme has not been conducive to the maintenance of
the harmonious relations that both parties agree have existed up
to now. The Court considers that the Craft Development Programme
proposals should be the subject of urgent discussions as quickly
as possible and that the issues outstanding between the parties
(Evening shift Premium, date stamp, making up of "Decal" stamps)
should be subsumed in these discussions. In the interim the Court
recommend that an increase on account of 3% be paid to the workers
concerned with effect from the date of this recommendation.
This amount to be reflected in any increase made on the
introduction of the Craft Development Programme.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9151 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13311
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: ORAL B LABORATORIES
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning late shift premium and project work.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company commenced operations in February, 1984 in
Newbridge and manufactures high quality toothbrush products. The
Company is to grow further shortly with the expansion of its plant
and the doubling of its employee numbers.
2. The workers involved in this dispute are craftworkers made
up of 2 electricans plus 1 temporary electrican and 6 fitters plus
2 temporary fitters. There are two issues in dispute:-
(a) late shift premium:
In 1990 the permanent craftspeople were moved from days to a shift
system of 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 4 p.m. to midnight. The fitters
work the evening shift every 4 weeks and the electricians every
3 weeks. The evening shift is unsupervised and the Union are
seeking, a 15% differential which is the percentage paid as the
foremans rate on days.
(b) project work:
Project work in dispute is from 2 areas, the making up of "decal"
stamps on character toothbrushes and the putting of date stamps on
all toothbrushes. The Company are seeking to have the tooling
work related to putting "decal" stamps on character toothbrushes
which heretofore was carried out by craftspeople put out on
contract. The Company wish to transfer work which was previously
done by craftspeople (date stamps on toothbrushes) to production
personnel. The Union claim a 2% increase in basic pay as well as
the making of a temporary fitter permanent.
3. There has been negotiations between the parties on a Craft
Development Programme (multi-skilling). Final proposals are not
yet ready to be presented. The Company argue that negotiations on
this package will deal with the craftspeoples aspirations for a
higher wage. The Union want the issues in dispute to be dealt
with seperately from the multi-skilling proposals.
3. The claim was referred to the conciliation service on 10th
October, 1990 and conciliation conferences were held on 6th
December, 1990 and 15th January, 1991. The Union pressed its
claim on the late shift premium which was rejected by the Company.
The Company introduced the issue of project work but was not
agreeable to pay the 2% basic pay increase demanded by the Union
or the making of a temporary fitter permanent. As no resolution
was possible, the parties agreed to refer the matters to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The case was
referred on 15th January, 1991 and a Labour Court investigation
took place on 16th May, 1991 (the earliest date suitable to both
parties).
Union Arguments:
3. 1. Evening shift premium
This claim is on behalf of craftspeople who do their work
unsupervised. It has been outstanding since 1987. The additional
responsibilities are comparable to the duties of a foreman on day
shift. The Company's only argument since 1987 is that the
workers, although working unsupervised have the facility of
contacting the Company's engineer. This is not the case (details
supplied to the Court). This claim has been around for some time
and must remain separate from any negotiations on multi-skilling
about which no firm proposals have been received from the Company.
Project Work:
2. This claim can be substantiated by the fact that it will be
self-financing due to the speeding up of production and the
availability of craftspeople to carry out work with a higher
degree of skill.
Company's Arguments:
4. The Company operates in a highly competitive consumer goods
market and the philosophy of the Company centres on initative,
personal responsibility, development of new products and processes
and enhancements to those existing. The survival of the business
is dependent upon the involvement of its employees in the process
of continuous improvement. The interests of the Company and all
of its employees will be endangered by buying out improvements
which (a) of their nature are collaborative between departments
and grades, (b) have formed the approach to work since the
Company's inception and (c) which are essential to business
survival.
Evening shift premium
2. Employee's on evening shift are provided with work programmes,
have telephone access to the Engineering Manager and the
Maintenance Foreman. They also liaise with the Evening Shift
Production supervisor in addressing machine breakdowns. The
craftspeople involved are highly skilled and experienced and are
required to be flexible in their positions. The Company have
consistently argued that there is no need for an additional
supervisor.
Project work
3. The Company is a forward looking business organisation
(details supplied to the Court). The two specific cases (details
supplied) forwarded to the Court for consideration have simplified
the level of skill involved in the respective processes and
enhanced competitiveness. The de-skilling of the tasks no longer
warrant a craftsperson's level of skill. This frees up the
craftspeople to more skilled and rewarding work. No redundancies
will be involved as new initatives are always being undertaken and
new products/processes come on stream.
4. The Company are presently trying to develop a Craft
Development Programme (multi-skilling). There is a lot of
preparation work involved but a considerable amount of ground work
has already been done (details supplied to the Court). It is only
within the framework of the Crafts Development Programme that the
aspirations of the craftspeople for an increased salary can be
addressed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the claim of the Union in respect of a
shift premium has been outstanding for some considerable time and
that the lack of a conclusion on this claim together with the
delay in respect of an outcome to discussions on the Craft
Development Programme has not been conducive to the maintenance of
the harmonious relations that both parties agree have existed up
to now. The Court considers that the Craft Development Programme
proposals should be the subject of urgent discussions as quickly
as possible and that the issues outstanding between the parties
(Evening shift Premium, date stamp, making up of "Decal" stamps)
should be subsumed in these discussions. In the interim the Court
recommend that an increase on account of 3% be paid to the workers
concerned with effect from the date of this recommendation.
This amount to be reflected in any increase made on the
introduction of the Craft Development Programme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
14th June, 1991 ------------
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman