Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93195 Case Number: LCR14100 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH PAPER SACKS - and - THE IRISH PRINT UNION |
Dispute concerning the rate of pay for the operation of a 4-colour printing-press.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has visited the workplace to see the plant in operation. It
has come to the conclusion that the operation of the 4-colour
machine, even taking account of any additional physical effort
does not warrant an ongoing additional payment for those involved.
Any temporary inconvenience or re-adjustment required of the
workers concerned would be adequately met by a once-off payment of
#250 per operator involved.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93195 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14100
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 T0 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH PAPER SACKS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
THE IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rate of pay for the operation of a
4-colour printing-press.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures paper sacks from pre-printed material
and employs a workforce of 68. A new 4-colour flexographic
printing-press was introduced by the Company in January, 1992.
The Union lodged a claim for increased manning in the printing
department, plus a differential of 25% for the operator of the new
press. The Company rejected the Union's claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 4th of February, 1993.
The dispute concerning manning-levels was resolved, but agreement
was not reached on the claim for a differential. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd March, 1993 in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 15th of April, 1993, and
carried out a work-inspection on the 12th of May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim for a 25% pay increase for the operation of the
new 4-colour printing-press is based on the additional work
involved and the increased physical exertion required.
2. Following the meeting with the Company on the 3rd of
April, 1992, the Union understood that a differential rate for
the new technology would apply retrospectively, once the issue
of manning was resolved.
3. There is a standing arrangement in the Company that new
technology should operate for 3 months after which a new rate
of pay would be negotiated, retrospectively, taking account of
any necessary training period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 'new' printing-press is 20 years old and cannot be
considered to be 'new technology'.
2. The Company has deployed an additional worker in the area
of the 'new' machine. Given the level of national agreements,
inflation, and previous and current manning, the claim for a
25% increase for the operation of a 20 year old machine on the
grounds that it is new technology, is without merit.
3. The claimants are already in receipt of substantial
payments over and above the normal stab-rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has visited the workplace to see the plant in operation. It
has come to the conclusion that the operation of the 4-colour
machine, even taking account of any additional physical effort
does not warrant an ongoing additional payment for those involved.
Any temporary inconvenience or re-adjustment required of the
workers concerned would be adequately met by a once-off payment of
#250 per operator involved.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
31st May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.