Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93629 Case Number: LCR14400 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: HALLMARK CARDS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for productivity payment.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, and having
inspected the work concerned on site, finds that there is a
requirement for the operator of the machines concerned to acquire
additional skills and, accordingly, the parties should negotiate
an increase in pay in respect of the operators.
The Court notes that the other workers, because of the increase in
throughput, have additional work required of them. The changes
were introduced under the Procedural Agreement which only provides
for payment in respect of additional skills required and,
accordingly, precludes any payment to these employees.
Given that the efficient operation of the machine requires all of
the employees to act as a team, the present arrangements do not
appear to the Court to be conducive to developing and maintaining
the necessary relationships which will ensure efficient and cost
effective operation of the machine.
The Court recommends the parties examine this situation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93629 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14400
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: HALLMARK CARDS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for productivity payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company produces greeting cards which it exports to the
United Kingdom and Europe. It is situated in Rathfarnhan and
employs 280 people. The Company purchased three new "Jaguar"
machines in 1992/'93 at a cost of #200,000. The machines pack
greeting cards into packs of 6 or 12. Productivity has increased
by 22% since the introduction of the machines.
The claim is on behalf of 15 workers, (3 machine operators and 12
support operators) for a 7.50% pay increase. The Company is willing
to negotiate with the machine operators but not with the support
operators. The Union claims that all 15 workers are involved with
the machines and that all 15 should get the pay increase.
A number of meetings at local level were held but no agreement was
reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 1st June,
1993 and, failing agreement, the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 1st November, 1993 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 16th November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has acknowledged that there has been a 22%
increase in output since the installation of the Jaguar
machines. This increase is because of the effort and
co-operation of the workers involved, who operate as a team.
Each worker makes a contribution and the Company has
repeatedly stressed the importance of workers operating as a
team.
2. At the same time that production has increased by 22%
the Company has reduced the manning levels working with the
machines. It is because of these two incidents combined that
the workers involved are claiming the pay increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Jaguar machines, which cost the Company #200,000,
were installed under the co-operation and security of the
employment clause in the Company's Procedural Agreement. The
Agreement states, in relation to changes in work practices,
that:
"Where such changes require additional skills which are
shown to result in substantial and measurable
productivity improvements (in accordance with the
agreement) after a trial period of 3 months full
operation, negotiations for adjustments in rates of pay
will take place."
This applies in the case of the machine operators and the
Company is willing to negotiate a pay increase with them. It
does not apply to the support operatives, who have had to
learn no new skills.
2. The company has had serious trading difficulties in the
last two years because of the recession in the United
Kingdom. This has resulted in a large number of
redundancies. The Company is trying to reduce costs through
more efficient methods. A concession of the Union's claim
would lead to similar claims from other workers in the same
grade, which would have a serious effect on efforts to reduce
costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, and having
inspected the work concerned on site, finds that there is a
requirement for the operator of the machines concerned to acquire
additional skills and, accordingly, the parties should negotiate
an increase in pay in respect of the operators.
The Court notes that the other workers, because of the increase in
throughput, have additional work required of them. The changes
were introduced under the Procedural Agreement which only provides
for payment in respect of additional skills required and,
accordingly, precludes any payment to these employees.
Given that the efficient operation of the machine requires all of
the employees to act as a team, the present arrangements do not
appear to the Court to be conducive to developing and maintaining
the necessary relationships which will ensure efficient and cost
effective operation of the machine.
The Court recommends the parties examine this situation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th April, 1993. Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.