Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93630 Case Number: LCR14409 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: HALLMARK CARDS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Claim for increase in rates for Bobst Operators.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the arguments made by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, and having
inspected the work in progress on site, finds that as a
consequence of the change the operator has to cope with additional
work while the machine is in operation.
The Court notes the change was implemented in accordance with the
co-operation and security of Employment, Flexibility and Manning
Clause of the Procedural Agreement. This clause of the agreement
provides for the adjustment of rates of pay following a trial
period where such changes require additional skills which are
shown to result in substantial and measurable productivity
improvements.
The Court finds that in this case the skills required to carry out
the work under the change are already within the skill range of
the Bobst operator. Accordingly, given the provisions of the
Procedural Agreement the Court does not find grounds have been
adduced to warrant an increase in pay.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93630 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14409
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
HALLMARK CARDS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for increase in rates for Bobst Operators.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company produces greeting cards which it exports to
the United Kingdom and Europe. It is situated in Rathfarnham
and employs 280 people. The claim is on behalf of ten
"Bobst" Operators for a 7% increase in pay because of the
introduction of a new operating procedure.
2. The Company has introduced a new system using segmented
dies on Bobst machines which will allow the Company to re-use
formes rather than using them only once. The Bobst Operators
concerned are required to place a number of forme sections
into a steel chase while their machine is running. This work
was formerly done by two S.I.P.T.U. workers.
3. The Company refused the Union's claim on behalf of the
Bobst Operators and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place
on 12th October, 1993 but no agreement was reached. On 4th
November, 1993 the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 16th December, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bobst Operators concerned are doing additional work
because of the new systems. The Company's House Agreement
states that if productivity improves because of changes in
work practices then, after a three month trial period,
negotiations could take place for a pay increase. The Union
agreed to the three month trial period but at the end of it
the Company rejected the claim.
2. The Company has not denied that the new system is a cost
saving one. Other workers in the Company who were given
additional duties, e.g., VDU Operators, have had the VDU rate
applied to them. The same should apply to the Bobst
Operators whose additional work is responsible for the
Company's cost reduction.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The transference of the work from the two S.I.P.T.U.
workers to the Bobst Operators was introduced under the
Company's Employment, Flexibility and Manning clause in the
House 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 three months' full
operation, negotiations for adjustments in rates of pay
will take place."
The changes made do not require additional skills for the
Bobst Operator concerned. They are being made to try and
reduce manufacturing cost and to ensure the survival of the
Company.
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. A concession of the Union's claim would lead
to similar claims from workers in other areas, which would
have a serious effect on efforts to reduce costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the arguments made by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, and having
inspected the work in progress on site, finds that as a
consequence of the change the operator has to cope with additional
work while the machine is in operation.
The Court notes the change was implemented in accordance with the
co-operation and security of Employment, Flexibility and Manning
Clause of the Procedural Agreement. This clause of the agreement
provides for the adjustment of rates of pay following a trial
period where such changes require additional skills which are
shown to result in substantial and measurable productivity
improvements.
The Court finds that in this case the skills required to carry out
the work under the change are already within the skill range of
the Bobst operator. Accordingly, given the provisions of the
Procedural Agreement the Court does not find grounds have been
adduced to warrant an increase in pay.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th April, 1994 Tom McGrath
C.O.N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.