Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91541 Case Number: LCR13524 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: STELRAD COMPONENTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims for (i) compensation for elimination of guarantee for two hours overtime (ii) increase of 25% in basic pay for two supervisors and two assistant supervisors and (iii) maintenance of internal relativities.
Recommendation:
10. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties recommends as follows.
(1) Assistant Supervisors
That in respect of the additional duties undertaken that
they be paid a 7% increase in basic pay.
The Court does not concede the claim of the Union for an
increase in respect of the other employees.
(2) Elimination of Overtime
That the compensation offered by the Company be increased
to £400 in full and final settlement of the claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91541 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13524
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1990
PARTIES: STELRAD COMPONENTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for (i) compensation for elimination of guarantee for
two hours overtime (ii) increase of 25% in basic pay for two
supervisors and two assistant supervisors and (iii) maintenance of
internal relativities.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of M.B. Caradon, a U.K. based
building products group. The Company manufactures central heating
radiator connections and has operated in Listowel since 1970. The
Company employs 62 people and operates a two shift system. Each
shift has 1 supervisor and 1 assistant supervisor. There are also
13 day workers.
3. Compensation for elimination of overtime
In 1983 an agreement was concluded which included a guarantee of
one hours overtime per shift. At that time a split two
cycle-shift operated. Subsequently the shifts became back-to-back
and the early finish on Fridays reduced the guarantee to 4 hours
per fortnight.
4. In 1989 the Company suspended the guarantee of overtime due to
a downturn in business. This was accepted by the Union at that
time as there was an expection of a return to the overtime working
when trading conditions improved. Early in 1991, the Company, at
local discussions, proposed certain manning levels on overtime
which would be triggered by certain levels of productivity. The
Union subsequently contested the manning levels and lodged a claim
for compensation as the Company proposed to eliminate overtime
working by the introduction of a third shift. The Union
quantified its claim as an increase in the shift allowance to 25%
from 22½%; consolidation in basic pay of the staggered meal
allowance (6%) and a lump sum payment equivalent to five times the
annual loss of overtime pay. The Company rejected the claim and
offered a once off lump sum of £200 to each affected employee.
5. Increase in basic pay for supervisors and maintenance of
relativities
In early 1991 the Company installed a new mechanical press to
manufacture collar components. A worker on the day shift who was
employed as a setter was directly affected by the installation of
the new machine as his job was made redundant. Following
discussions the worker agreed to revert to working as an operator
on shift and be paid a lump sum for loss of
status/responsibilities. The agreement has not being implemented
pending the resolution of the other issues.
6. There is still an element of the setter's work to be performed
and the Company proposed that this work be taken on by the
supervisors and the assistant supervisors in return for an
increase in basic pay of 7%. The Union rejected the offer and
lodged a claim for an increase of 25% in basic pay plus the
maintenance of existing relativities.
7. As no agreement was reached at local level the various claims
were referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation
conferences were held on 31st July, 5th September and 2nd October,
1991. As no agreement was reached, the Commission, with the
consent of the parties referred the issue to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in
Limerick on 13th November, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. There are many precedents for the payment of compensation
for loss of guaranteed overtime. This claim can best be met,
in view of the other issues, within a context of productivity
and as shift personnel are the only ones affected an increase
in shift allowance is sought.
2. The Company has achieved considerable direct savings as a
result of the elimination of the setter's job (details
supplied to the Court). The claim for the 25% increase in
basic pay for supervisors and their assistants adequately
reflects the workers' share of the savings and the extra
duties involved.
3. There are long-standing pay relativities in this Company.
The Company has argued in the past for their retention which
view was endorsed in Labour Court recommendation L.C.R. 8501.
The Court has in many incidents in the past recommended that
pay relativities be maintained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The claims are without justification. The Company's offer
adequately reflects the increased responsibilities of the
workers concerned.
2. As no other employees are affected by the changes there is
no justification for special pay increases. Such increases
would be unsustainable in view of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
3. The Company has invested heavily in new machinery in order
to maintain existing employment and create new jobs. These
aims will not be achieved if the costs of such re-organisation
are excessive.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties recommends as follows.
(1) Assistant Supervisors
That in respect of the additional duties undertaken that
they be paid a 7% increase in basic pay.
The Court does not concede the claim of the Union for an
increase in respect of the other employees.
(2) Elimination of Overtime
That the compensation offered by the Company be increased
to £400 in full and final settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
9th January, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.