Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92662 Case Number: LCR13910 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH CARTON PRINTERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for enhanced rates of pay for the operation of new machinery.
Recommendation:
5. Having regards to (a) the details related to the working of
the new machine and (b) the manner in which such increases were
applied heretofore, the Court considers that the offer as made by
the Company is reasonable in the circumstances and should be
accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92662 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13910
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH CARTON PRINTERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for enhanced rates of pay for the operation of new
machinery.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which was founded in 1934 produces cigarette
cartons. With a view to the future, and in the hope of
maintaining its market position against competition, the Company
invested #4 million in a Bobst Lemanic 820 colour printing press.
The new press provides 80% increased output in the same production
time, with the same level of staffing.
The Union lodged a claim on behalf of 12 operatives for an
improvement in rates of pay arising from the introduction of the
new machine. After local negotiations, the Company offered an
increase of 15% to the operatives. The offer was rejected by the
Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 24th of April, 1992 and a conciliation
conference was held on the 5th of October, 1992 at which no
progress was made. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court
on the 27th of October, 1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 7th of December, 1992,
the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The increased rate of pay offered by the Company should
reflect the increased processing speed and improved output
from the new machine.
2. In conjunction with the new machine, the Company is
installing a new conveyer-belt and a new bander. This will
result in the loss of four jobs. The savings made by the
Company as a result of the reduced workforce should be
returned in part to the remaining workers.
3. The operation of the new machine at its capacity on a two
shift system will increase output. This will provide
additional revenue for the Company.
4. The Company's offer of 15% could be entertained if it were
based on a rate that included the shift rate (i.e. 15% of
#194.70 as opposed to 15% of #171.00).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The investment made in the new machine was purely
defensive and was aimed at enabling the Company to remain in
business, in the face of increased competition.
2. The installation of the new machinery is not a
profit-enhancing measure and there should be no expectation of
large pay-increases.
3. The offer of a 15% increase on the current basic rate is
the same as the increase offered to the three other unions
involved. The offer was accepted by the Craft Union.
4. The Company's exports 90% of its output to the U.K..
Profits have been adversely affected by the sterling currency
crisis.
5. When operating the old machine, 4 employees were required
to process 1 million cartons, standing for the duration of the
8-hour shift. They were accompanied by 1 Quality Assurance
employee. When operating the new machine 3 of the 4 will be
seated for the entire shift. They will be accompanied by 1
Quality Assurance employee and a further employee to cover for
toilet breaks.
6. The original offer of an increase of 15% on the basic rate
is reasonable, considering the automation that has taken
place, and that historically, such increases have been as a
percentage of the basic rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regards to (a) the details related to the working of
the new machine and (b) the manner in which such increases were
applied heretofore, the Court considers that the offer as made by
the Company is reasonable in the circumstances and should be
accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
22nd December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.