Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92623 Case Number: LCR13943 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: C.B. PACKAGING LIMITED - and - THE IRISH PRINT UNION |
Claim on behalf of six printers for the retrospective payment of a revised rate of pay following the introduction of a new printing-press.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that, having regard to the time which elapsed
from the installation of the equipment to the eventual settlement
of the rate for the work, the Company should agree to negotiate an
amount of retrospection, this amount to take account of the period
required for training.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92623 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13943
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: C.B. PACKAGING LIMITED
and
THE IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of six printers for the retrospective payment
of a revised rate of pay following the introduction of a new
printing-press.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Clondalkin, Dublin and is engaged in
the manufacture of sacks, mainly for the Agricultural sector. It
employs 83 workers including the six printers involved in the
dispute. In May, 1990, the Company installed a new six-colour
flexographic printer in order to improve quality and to increase
productivity. The Union served a claim on the Company for an
improved rate of pay for the printers who were working on the new
printing-press. Agreement was not reached at local level and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
At conciliation conferences on the 19th and 20th December, 1991,
proposals were formulated relating to issues arising out of the
introduction of the new machinery. The proposals were accepted by
both parties, but the Union sought retrospection on the
implementation of the proposals. The Company rejected the claim
for retrospection and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission in January, 1992. A conciliation conference
was held in April, 1992 at which agreement was not reached. The
dispute was referred in the Labour Court on the 12th of October,
1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 25th of
January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Registered Agreement provides that, where new
machinery is introduced, it operates for a period of three
months after which a new rate can be negotiated. The rate
would be made retrospective to the date of installation of the
new machine, with allowance being made for a suitable training
period.
2. The Union have always applied the Registered Agreement,
particularly concerning new machinery and the establishment of
new rates, whether or not the Company was a member of the
Irish Printing Federation.
3. The total cost of payment of retrospection is very small
in comparison with the cost of the installation of the new
machinery.
4. The Company is no different from other Companies in the
printing industry. It is obliged to meet the Union's claim
for retrospection.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not party to any agreement other than the
agreement operating and applicable to personnel working in the
Printing Department within the factory plant.
2. It is not Company policy to make retrospective payments on
the installation of new machinery and equipment in the
factory.
3. During the lengthy training period that followed the
installation of the new printing-press the Company incurred
high additional overtime costs. At that time, the performance
rate of the machine was as low as 60%.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that, having regard to the time which elapsed
from the installation of the equipment to the eventual settlement
of the rate for the work, the Company should agree to negotiate an
amount of retrospection, this amount to take account of the period
required for training.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
8th February, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.