Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92548 Case Number: LCR13939 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WIGGINS TEAPE IRELAND LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the differential between fitters and chargehands.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the manner in which the bonus scheme was introduced and operated
the Court finds no basis on which it could recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92548 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13939
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: WIGGINS TEAPE IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION)
and
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the differential between fitters and
chargehands.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which employs approximately 143 workers, is one
of the country's leading stationery manufacturers and paper
merchants.
3. In September, 1985 the Company introduced a bonus scheme. In
1989 the Union sought enhancement of the scheme. This resulted in
the introduction of a fall-back rate of #37.52 a week. The
fall-back rate is a guaranteed amount payable irrespective of
target figures being met. This rate has since being increased to
#45.43 per week. Under the old scheme a certain target had to be
met before a bonus was paid.
4. The Union lodged a claim on behalf of fitters for payment of a
weekly bonus of #86 similar to that payable to foremen and
chargehands. The Company rejected the claim and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 4th December, 1991.
A conciliation conference was held on 9th June, 1992. As no
agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent of the
parties referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 8th September,
1992 for investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took place on
26th January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Both groups of workers (fitters and chargehands) carry out
the same duties and all work together on envelope
manufacturing machines.
2. Prior to a restructuring of the Company in 1991 the
difference in the two bonus payments was minimal. Since that
time, there are less machines in operation and fitters have
been unable to reach the required targets to maintain bonus
payments. Originally there were nine fitters for nine
envelope machines and one wrapping machine. Now there are six
fitters for eight envelope machines and one wrapping machine.
This has resulted in an increased workload for the remaining
fitters.
3. The differential which a chargehand holds over a fitter is
20%. This differential has widened since the difference in
the bonus payments has arisen.
4. The effectiveness of the bonus scheme was completely
removed when the Company took a "249" machine out of
production as it is now impossible to exceed the targets which
would lead to increased productivity payments above #46.79 per
week.
5. The claim is not cost increasing as savings arising from
the redundancy of one foreman, one fitter and two lead hands
would more than meet the cost of the claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. There has never been any relativity or comparability
between the bonus of fitters and that of chargehands. The
chargehands' bonus is fixed whereas the fitters' bonus is
variable.
2. The fitters' bonus scheme has a fall-back rate of 23.23%
of basic rate which is generous and unequalled in the printing
industry.
3. The printing business is in recession and the Company is
experiencing major difficulties in the market place.
4. The claim is debarred under the terms of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the manner in which the bonus scheme was introduced and operated
the Court finds no basis on which it could recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
2nd February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.