Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91636 Case Number: LCR13551 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CAPITAL SPICERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;IRISH PRINT UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 13 workers for the payment of a 9% machine rate for the operation of a new RA91 envelope machine.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the views of the
parties to this dispute as expressed in their oral and written
submissions finds that an expectation had been created that a
rate would be agreed for the operation of the machine in
dispute to apply following the three-month running in period.
The Court has noted that the parties are discussing proposals
relating to work practices, manning levels, flexibility etc.
The Court considers that the parties should continue with these
discussions and seek to reach agreement as quickly as possible.
In the interim the staff directly operating the machine should
receive a payment of 4% on an interim basis to apply pending
the outcome of the discussions on the proposals referred to
above.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91636 RECOMMENDATIONS NO. LCR13551
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CAPITAL SPICERS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 13 workers
for the payment of a 9% machine rate for the operation of a new
RA91 envelope machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1991 the Company installed a new envelope
machine in addition to the old RA800 envelope machine. The new
machine is similar to the old machine but has a greater
capacity. In line with Clause 11 of the Registered Employment
Agreement for the Printing Industry the Irish Women Workers'
Branch (I.W.W.B.) of Services Industrial Professional Technical
Union (S.I.P.T.U.) who represent the machine operators agreed
to crew the machine for a 3-month trial period which would be
followed by discussions on a rate for operating the machine.
The I.W.W.B. are claiming a 9% rate for the operation of the
machine. The Irish Print Union (I.P.U.) Amalgamated
Engineering Union (A.E.U.) and S.I.P.T.U. No. 16 Branch
(Printing Trades Branch) are also claiming a machine rate in
respect of their members. Their claim is based on the
additional work involved in the setting-up, servicing and
maintenance of the machine, on the increased volume of material
going to and coming from the machine and on the maintenance of
salary differentials. The Company rejected the Unions' claim.
As agreement could not be reached locally the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 19th September,
1991. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference held on 11th November, 1991 and in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, the matter
was referred on 29th November, 1991 to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 17th January, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new envelope machine has an increased production
capacity of 50% - 100%. The crewing level can, with
slight modification, be the same as on the old machine.
In practical terms this requires the handling of up to
twice the amount of material and finished product compared
to older machines. In the context of this large increase
in productivity the claim is self-financing.
2. When the machine was introduced in April, 1991,
discussions took place with the Company in the context of
Clause 11 of the Registered Agreement. The workers agreed
to operate the machine pending agreement on the
establishment of a rate. It was agreed that a rate would
by established by August, 1991. However, the Company
proposed that the matter should be dealt with in the
context of new proposals on pay structures and working
conditions. These new proposals will require long and
detailed negotiations before they are finalised They also
go far beyond the interests of those concerned with this
claim and impact on unions not party to this claim. It is
unreasonable to defer a settlement of this claim until
agreement is reached on new pay and conditions while
expecting workers to operate the new machine and generate
increased productivity.
3. The Unions' claim should be met within the terms of
the Registered Agreement and on the basis of the Company's
commitment. To do otherwise would lead to mistrust and
workers will be reluctant to operate new machinery while a
rate is under negotiation as per the agreement.
4. The Unions have said that in the event of
negotiations on the Company's proposals on pay and
conditions producing a rate for the use of new machinery,
then that amount can be absorbed into the amount paid as a
result of this claim.
5. The Company have argued that a 5% increase paid to
all I.W.W.B. members in the firm in June, 1990 should
elimnate this claim. The Unions contend that that
particular increase has no relevance to this claim. That
increase was an interim payment pending agreement on
reduced crewing which is wholly unrelated to the
circumstances giving rise to this claim. In the proposals
put forward by the Company immediately prior to the
increase being paid, the introduction of the machine
currently in dispute was specifically excluded from the
items for discussion. That particular increase was paid
to all the I.W.W.B. employees and could not be regarded as
part-compensation for those specifically designated to
work the machine in dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1990, when the Company paid a 5% increase to
I.W.W.B. members, it did so in the context of envisaged
savings as a result of decrewing and other things. The
Company paid the increase in the belief that it was being
accepted inter alia as an alternative to a machine rate.
Contained within the area designated for decrewing was an
RA800 machine.
2. The new machine is almost identical to the RA800
envelope machine already on site and creates absolutely
nothing new by way of work practices, technological change
or increased productivity from the workers. Flexibility
of staff to work on a range of machines is essential to
the Company.
3. Although the new machine has a potentially greater
production capacity, the fact of the matter is that output
is down. The Company is producing less because of
difficulties being experienced in the market place.
4. The Company's competitors do not pay any machine
rates. To concede this claim would lead to the creation
of anomalies and give rise to varying direct costs which
would have to be reflected in the price of some products.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all of the views of the
parties to this dispute as expressed in their oral and written
submissions finds that an expectation had been created that a
rate would be agreed for the operation of the machine in
dispute to apply following the three-month running in period.
The Court has noted that the parties are discussing proposals
relating to work practices, manning levels, flexibility etc.
The Court considers that the parties should continue with these
discussions and seek to reach agreement as quickly as possible.
In the interim the staff directly operating the machine should
receive a payment of 4% on an interim basis to apply pending
the outcome of the discussions on the proposals referred to
above.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
------------------------
10th February, 1992
B.O'N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman