Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92291 Case Number: LCR13822 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: HYDRO HOIST LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Introduction of a 15% allowance for computerised numerical control machine operators.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
outlined in their oral and written submissions does not consider
there are grounds for concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92291 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13822
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: HYDRO HOIST LIMITED
and
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Introduction of a 15% allowance for computerised numerical
control machine operators.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of Tipping Gears
and Hydraulic lifting platforms, for the export market mainly. In
early 1992, the Union submitted a claim for a 15% differential on
behalf of workers operating computerised numerical control
(C.N.C.) machines. The Union claims that C.N.C. operators in the
industry are paid a 15% differential over the basic rate. The
Company rejected the claim. Local level discussions failed to
resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 28th
April, 1992, and as no agreement could be reached the matter was
referred to the Labour Court on 19th May, 1992. The Court hearing
took place on 6th October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of C.N.C. machines has resulted in
increased production to the Company.
2. In most companies where C.N.C. machines had been
introduced, craftsmen operate the machines and are paid
differentials over and above the basic craft rate. The
workers here concerned are semi-skilled workers and are paid a
much lower basic rate of pay for operating the C.N.C.
machines.
3. The claim for a 15% differential on the lower semi-skilled
rate of pay is not excessive when compared to the rates of pay
applicable to similar grades of workers in other employments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The original Company/Union agreement provides for total
flexibility between all categories of semi-skilled workers
with the highest semi-skilled rate of pay applicable to all
categories. Pricing of export contracts is based on this
arrangement which has been in operation for over 10 years.
2. A special increase for any semi-skilled category of
workers would have knock-on affects for the remainder of the
workforce. This would make the Company uncompetitive. Over
75% of production is exported and increased costs cannot be
passed on to customers without the risk of losing the
business.
3. The Industry is going through a recession with no sign of
an immediate recovery. Last year, 50% of the workforce were
laid off for 4 months.
4. The Union's comparison of the workers concerned with
C.N.C. operators in other employment is unfair and based on
inaccurate information. The workers concerned have no
responsibility for setting, or programming the C.N.C.
machines, or for the accuracy of the manufactured components.
The Company employ C.N.C. machine setters whose sole function
is to programme and set-up C.N.C. machines.
5. Because of the limited requirements of the C.N.C.
operators it is the semi-skilled category which requires the
least training. The temporary lay-off in 1991 was based on a
last in first out basis and included 6 out of 7 recognised
C.N.C. operators.
5. The C.N.C. operator's job is to load and unload the
machine and check the accuracy of the ongoing production.
This particular work is now done by the Company's overseas
competitors on unmanned machines.
6. The rates of pay and conditions of employment of the
workers concerned compare favourably with other workers in
similar employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
outlined in their oral and written submissions does not consider
there are grounds for concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
30th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.