Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94100 Case Number: LCR14432 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PRINTCRAFT COMPUTERPRINT LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for a 5% increase.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and having
visited the plant and witnessed the machines in operation the
Court finds no basis on which it could justify recommending
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94100 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14432
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
PRINTCRAFT COMPUTERPRINT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a 5% increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 130 workers and currently operates 2
shifts. The dispute involves 36 workers. The Union's claim,
which was first submitted in 1988, is for payment of a 5%
differential known as the 'machine rate' for the operation of a
perfect binding machine. This machine was first introduced in
1988 and replaced by a more modern version in 1993. (Details
supplied to the Court). The claim, submitted at various times
between 1988 and 1993, was rejected by Management. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation
conferences were held on the 16th June, 20th July and 1st
November, 1993. As no agreement could be reached the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 9th February, 1994. A Court
hearing was held on the 3rd March, 1994. The Court visited the
plant and inspected the work of the claimants on the 3rd May,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 5% allowance is a standard payment in the industry.
It is being paid by many competitor companies to employees
doing the same tasks as the workers concerned.
2. The Company quotes keen competition from other printing
companies, price reductions from customers, etc., as a basis
for not paying the increase. These factors also affect many
of the competitor firms which have paid the increase to their
workers.
3. The workers concerned have given excellent service and
co-operation to the Company. They have a reasonable
expectation of the 5% payment originally claimed in 1988.
The Company is maintaining an unfair competitor advantage at
the expense of the workers concerned. The Union is seeking
immediate payment with full retrospection.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Company commenced operations a perfect binder
was already in place and workers taking up employment in the
Company were aware of this situation. No new technology was
involved. Perfect binding, gathering and inserting have been
in operation in the print industry for many years.
2. The workers concerned in this operation remove sections
of computer manuals (printed, folded and stacked) and insert
them into the gatherer which supplies the binder. They do
not operate the binder machine. Its operation is undertaken
by a worker from another Union. The claim for a 5% increase
is not justified.
3. The Company has paid the terms of P.E.S.P. to its
workforce. It is facing keen competition from companies
which operate more modern and less labour intensive
machinery. The Company obtains 90% of its trade from one
customer who has insisted on price cuts of up to 43% and
requires a further reduction of 10%.
4. Management, in an effort to resolve the dispute, offered
an across-the-board increase of 2% to all its workers. The
offer was rejected by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and having
visited the plant and witnessed the machines in operation the
Court finds no basis on which it could justify recommending
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th June, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.