Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95269 Case Number: LCR14868 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBARRY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
"SATRA" system in leather cutting area.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the SLM System is one which is accepted and
used widely within the footwear industry. The Court also notes
the history related to the application of the scheme within the
Company herein concerned.
It is evident to the Court that, similar to any other incentive
scheme which is based on output/quality while using a variable
quality/size material, an element of disagreement is bound to
arise whenever there is a marked change in the quality/size of the
material, or in the quantity required (in this instance cuts per
hide).
It is not the intention of the Court to adjudicate on the merits
or demerits of the overall scheme. Rather, it confines itself to
the specific area of dispute, which is relevant within the
foregoing comments i.e., Clauses 4 and 5 of the Disputes
Procedure, which is an in-Company addendum to the SLM System as
operated within the Company.
Accordingly, in an effort to resolve the issue as referred to it,
the Court recommends that (a) both of the above Clauses be amended
to read 3.5% and (b) that a further Clause 5(a) be inserted. This
Clause to read - 'For a period of 3 months in the year the figure
3.5% in Clauses 4 and 5 to be read as 4%'.
The Court suggests that it lies with the parties to reach
agreement on the exact starting and finishing dates of the 3 month
period.
The performance under (a) and (b) above should be reviewed at the
end of July, 1996.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95269 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14868
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DUBARRY LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. "SATRA" system in leather cutting area.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned in this dispute are employed by the
Company as clickers. In 1989 agreement was reached between
the parties on procedures and techniques for the
implementation of the SATRA (Shoe and Allied Trades
Association) Scientific Leather Measurement (SLM) system.
The agreement provided for a minimum bonus payment of 2%
during periods when difficult styles were in dispute.
The SATRA SLM process is a U.K. system designed to produce
the optimum number of cuts from a hide in terms of quantity
and quality. It involves a bonus system which can deliver on
either speed and/or quality.
The Union is seeking that the minimum payment guaranteed
during a `style' dispute be increased to a minimum of 5%.
The Company has offered 3% which was rejected by the Union.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place on 30th March, 1995. As
no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Galway on
19th July, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The SLM system has major flaws and offers very little
reward to the clickers. The system was designed to
benefit both the clickers and the Company. As the
system operates at present only the Company is
benefiting. Top clickers should achieve 8% on a regular
basis. This is rarely achieved because the system is
manipulated to ensure that the percentage payment made
to the clickers is kept to a minimum.
2. The people involved in the assessment of leather have
disagreed on many occasions. Different people put
different values on the standard and quality. When
disagreements occur it is the clickers who suffer.
3. When the system was introduced the clickers were led to
believe that an average payment of 5.75% would be
achieved. In the circumstances the Union's claim that
the minimum payment be increased to 5% is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has a signed agreement covering all aspects
of the SLM, including an negotiation and agreement
disputes procedure backed up by the Union's industrial
engineering officer.
2. In an effort to satisfy the misgivings of the operators,
the Company has made every possible effort, including
modifying the disputes procedure contained in an already
existing agreement.
3. During the past 6 years, arguments have been put forward
by the clickers that certain styles and leathers were
not allowing them achieve certain gains. The Company
tackled each problem and answered the allegations made.
4. The average gain of 4% as recommended by SATRA is not a
guaranteed minimum, but as stated an averaging system.
5. There is no merit in the Union's claim, given the
Company's performance in relation to the SLM and pay.
In the circumstances the Union should honour the 1989
agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the SLM System is one which is accepted and
used widely within the footwear industry. The Court also notes
the history related to the application of the scheme within the
Company herein concerned.
It is evident to the Court that, similar to any other incentive
scheme which is based on output/quality while using a variable
quality/size material, an element of disagreement is bound to
arise whenever there is a marked change in the quality/size of the
material, or in the quantity required (in this instance cuts per
hide).
It is not the intention of the Court to adjudicate on the merits
or demerits of the overall scheme. Rather, it confines itself to
the specific area of dispute, which is relevant within the
foregoing comments i.e., Clauses 4 and 5 of the Disputes
Procedure, which is an in-Company addendum to the SLM System as
operated within the Company.
Accordingly, in an effort to resolve the issue as referred to it,
the Court recommends that (a) both of the above Clauses be amended
to read 3.5% and (b) that a further Clause 5(a) be inserted. This
Clause to read - 'For a period of 3 months in the year the figure
3.5% in Clauses 4 and 5 to be read as 4%'.
The Court suggests that it lies with the parties to reach
agreement on the exact starting and finishing dates of the 3 month
period.
The performance under (a) and (b) above should be reviewed at the
end of July, 1996.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th August, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.