Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92550 Case Number: LCR13869 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SOLA A.D.C. LENSES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims by the Union for an increase in: (1) the differential for Auto. O.S.I. operation, and (2) line setters' rate of pay.
Recommendation:
9. 1. Differential for Auto OSI.
The Court recommends that the necessary studies of this
operation be carried out by the Company or independent
industrial engineers, that a copy of the report be
furnished to the Union and that the Company make
arrangements to provide such facilities as may be
necessary to the Union to enable their industrial
engineer to validate the findings of the report.
In the event that the parties are unable to agree the
Court will review the discussions and the findings of the
Company and the Union and issue a definitive
recommendation.
2. Setters' Rate
In the light of the provisions of the P.E.S.P. the Court
takes the view that consideration of this claim at this
time is inappropriate.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92550 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13869
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SOLA A.D.C. LENSES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union for an increase in:
(1) the differential for Auto. O.S.I. operation, and
(2) line setters' rate of pay.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The claims were referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
the 22nd June, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on the
2nd September, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on
the 8th September, 1992. A Court hearing was held in Wexford, on
the 11th November, 1992.
Claim I O.S.I. Operators:
Background:
3. The claim concerns 9 workers. O.S.I. (open-shut-inspect)
operators on this process receive the glass lens on an assembly
line in a mould. They open the mould, shut and discard it and
inspect the lens to ensure it is correctly 'baked' and up to
standard. The workers receive an allowance of #10 on their basic
pay. Recently the Company introduced an automated process called
"Auto O.S.I". The Union's claim is for an increase in the
allowance on the grounds of an increased workload on O.S.I.
operators.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of the "Auto. O.S.I." process reduced the
manual and less skilled 'open-shut' operation. The operators
now concentrate on the more onerous process of inspection. It
has increased the workload from an inspection rate of 1,200
moulds to between 2,200 and 2,400 moulds. There is a clear
increase in the most skilled part of the operation as quality
of product is crucial.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The automation of the O.S.I. inspection reduces
considerably the physical aspects of the process. There is no
increase in the workload of the workers concerned. There is
a decrease on the physical scale of the process and there is
no justification for the claim.
2. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the
terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
2. Setters' rate of pay:
Background:
6. The claim concerns 9 line setters who receive an allowance of
10% on their basic pay. The Union claims that the allowance
should be consolidated into their basic pay for the purposes of
overtime, shift premia etc..
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. There are anomalies in the setters' rates of pay relative
to other grades. The consolidation of the 10% allowance would
bring the rates of the workers concerned in line with lead
hands, senior operators, and supervisors, who are in receipt
of consolidated rates. When line setters work on Saturday
when their line is running they receive the consolidated rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The workers concerned do minor adjustments to machines.
They are not qualified craftsmen and have no formal mechanical
training.
2. They are in receipt of the 10% allowance since 1988. It
was agreed with the Union at that time, and it does not
attract overtime or shift premia. If the claim were conceded
it would disrupt other relativities within the Company's wage
structure.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the
terms of the P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. 1. Differential for Auto OSI.
The Court recommends that the necessary studies of this
operation be carried out by the Company or independent
industrial engineers, that a copy of the report be
furnished to the Union and that the Company make
arrangements to provide such facilities as may be
necessary to the Union to enable their industrial
engineer to validate the findings of the report.
In the event that the parties are unable to agree the
Court will review the discussions and the findings of the
Company and the Union and issue a definitive
recommendation.
2. Setters' Rate
In the light of the provisions of the P.E.S.P. the Court
takes the view that consideration of this claim at this
time is inappropriate.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________
30th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.