Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93607 Case Number: LCR14330 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MARCHMONT PACKAGING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rate for operation of Japack machine.
Recommendation:
The Court does not find that grounds have been put forward by the
Union to warrant concession of the claim.
Accordingly the claim is rejected.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93607 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14330
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MARCHMONT PACKAGING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Dispute concerning the rate for operation of Japack
machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures folding cartons and employs 100
workers. Its business is almost 100% export. In 1992, the
company installed a Japack fully-automatic packer at a cost
of #85,000.
2. Following the installation of the automatic packer, the
manning levels on the machine are reduced from 4 to 3
workers. The Union presented a claim for a productivity pay
increase on behalf of the 3 workers. It is the Union's
position that the workers work harder on the production
process following the installation of the Japack.
3. The Company rejected the claim on the basis that the
addition of the Japack to the production process made the 3
jobs easier.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on 25th
January and 6 September, 1993. No progress was possible at
conciliation and the claim was referred to the Labour Court
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on
27th October, 1993. A Labour Court investigation took place
on 13th January, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to both
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Japack machine has been installed since 1992 and it
has essentially been on trial since then. Following the
installation of the machine "decrewing" took place by the
reduction in the number of workers from 4 to 3. Throughout
the print industry, where decrewing takes place the reduced
crew will benefit by improved rates of pay. The installation
of the Japack in other Companies has led to improved rates of
pay for the remaining workers (details supplied).
2. The plant was visited by the Union's industrial engineer
and his report found that there was extra productivity
involved and that output had increased significantly. In
addition, the Company has an expanded range of product
(details supplied). The workers' claim for an enhanced rate
of pay is soundly based on precedent and normal practice in
the print industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was forced to install the new Japack machine
in order to bring its production levels up to the standard of
its UK competitors. The Company has no Irish competitors.
The Japack makes the work of the 3 operators easier and in
comparison with its competitors, the Company has one extra
worker on the machine.
2. The installation of the Japack has allowed the Company
to increase the running speeds of the packing machine.
However, given that the 3 workers on the machine are rotated,
there can be no suggestion that the work is beyond their
capacity or that they are being overworked. Any productivity
increase is as a result of the investment in the machine and
not the effort of the operators.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not find that grounds have been put forward by the
Union to warrant concession of the claim.
Accordingly the claim is rejected.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th February, 1994. Tom McGrath
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.