Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95233 Case Number: LCR15024 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LAPPLE (IRELAND) LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
(i) Differential for chargehands (ii) Plus payment for Datamyte machine.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions, the Court finds as follows:-
Payment to Chargehands: The Court is of the view that the
substantive part of the claim-payment
of allowance has been met. The Court
does not recommend payment of the
allowance for the retrospective period
claimed by the Union.
Datamyte Machine: The Court recommends that this issue
should be more correctly dealt with in
the proposed Job Evaluation exercise.
Payment can be back-dated should that
exercise find in favour of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95233 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15024
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LAPPLE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
(i) Differential for chargehands (ii) Plus payment for
Datamyte machine.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
Lapple (Ireland) Ltd. is an engineering company based in
Arklow. It is involved in heavy engineering, making tools
for the automotive industry. It employs approximately 250
workers.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claims on
behalf of approximately 8 workers employed in the Company's
machine shop. Local level discussions took place but no
progress was made and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place in
April and October, 1994 but agreement was not reached and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 30th March, 1995
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place in Carlow on 21st November,
1995, the first available date suitable to both parties.
Differential for chargehands
Background:
In 1989, the Company purchased the first of its CNC (Computer
Numerically Controlled) milling machines. Following
negotiations, agreement was reached on a plus payment of 15%
(on basic) for the machine operators.
In 1993, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of two
chargehands for an increase of 15% on the basis that their
differential of 20% over the operators was being eroded.
Management rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The chargehands in the machine shop have an agreed
differential of 20% over the operators. The differential was
eroded when the operators received the 15%.
2. The chargehands are involved in the training of workers to
operate the machines which has resulted in a significant
increase in productivity.
3. The chargehand on the night-shift and the assistant
chargehand on the day-shift both receive the 15% in addition
to their respective differentials.
4. The chargehands check all jobs before they are removed from
the machine. They have full responsibility for the work and
in the circumstances their differential should at all times
be maintained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. When the CNC machines were introduced a claim was made on
behalf of designated operators. It was agreed to pay a 15%
plus payment to those operators because they were trained and
responsible for the operation of these machines. No claim
was made on behalf of the chargehands at that time because it
was recognised that the introduction of the CNC machine would
have no impact upon them.
2. The designated operator is responsible for the CNC machine.
The introduction of CNC machine operation entailed no extra
duties to the chargehands and there was no erosion of their
differential.
3. The company have extended the use of CNC machines and
currently four of the nine machines in the Big Machine Shop
are CNC operated. Since 1994 and 1995 respectively, both
chargehands have been trained to operate CNC machines and
currently do so. They are paid according to the agreement
i.e., the rate set for their chargehand responsibilities, (+20%)
plus the rate (+15%) for actually operating the CNC machine.
In the circumstances there is no merit in the Union's claim.
CMM (Computerised Measuring Machines) and Datamyte Machine
Background:
The Union's claim referred to the Labour Relations Commission
was for a 20% plus payment on behalf of six workers operating
the CMM and Datamyte machines. Prior to the Court hearing
agreement was reached in respect of the CMM. The Company's
position in relation to the datamyte machine is that it is
simpler than the old manual machine to operate and that no
additional payment is justified.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The operation of the Datamyte is complex and involves
computer technology. Frequent calibration of the Datamyte is
carried out by Q.C. personnel to ensure accuracy. Analysis
of all monitored components takes place every time a
component is produced.
2. The Company's claim that the Datamyte simplifies the job is
rejected by the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Datamyte is easier to use than the scales and gauges used
in the manual system. It records and plots information,
where previously this was performed by the Q.C. inspector.
2. The Datamyte automatically warns of any trends in decreasing
quality. It simplifies this function and significantly
reduces the responsibilities involved in maintaining quality.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court finds as follows:-
Payment to Chargehands: The Court is of the view that the
substantive part of the claim-payment
of allowance has been met. The Court
does not recommend payment of the
allowance for the retrospective period
claimed by the Union.
Datamyte Machine: The Court recommends that this issue
should be more correctly dealt with in
the proposed Job Evaluation exercise.
Payment can be back-dated should that
exercise find in favour of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th December, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./A.K. -------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.