Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94514 Case Number: AD952 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH CARTON PRINTERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST145/94 concerning a claim for an increase in basic pay.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be
upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94514 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD295
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IRISH CARTON PRINTERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST145/94 concerning a claim for an increase in basic pay.
BACKGROUND:
1. The Company employs approximately 78 workers in the
manufacture of cigarette cartons. In July, 1993 discussions
took place between the parties (concerning the introduction
of new work practices) at which the Union submitted a claim
for 8%. Inclusive in the 8% claim was 4% to take account of
fork-lift truck drivers differential. The Company's final
offer was 6% which was paid to the 5 workers concerned
following the introduction of the new work arrangements in
January, 1994.
A review of the new working arrangements took place in April,
1994 following which the Union submitted a claim for an
additional 15%. The Company rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 31st September, 1994
the Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
1. 'I have to concur with the argument of the Employer that
the appropriate body to interpret the Registered
Agreement is the relevant JLC and I cannot interfere
with such a function.
2. I cannot resolve the direct conflict of evidence in
relation to the precise terms of the claims lodged
verbally in the first instance by the Union and in these
circumstances I feel I can only address the offers made
by the Employer.
3. I am satisfied that the Company in its offer covered the
position of the Claimant and his colleagues. Some
workers were beneficiaries of the full 6%. The exercise
was a rationalisation of a total operation and the
Claimant also benefited to the extent of an additional
2%.
4. In these circumstances I recommend that the Company's
latest offer is accepted. If the Union wishes to have a
work study exercise carried out on the Claimant's job
then the Company should agree to this request. In this
connection I do not share the Union's fears in relation
to a comparison with the pre-rationalisation job content
as the work study techniques applied can evaluate an
existing job content on empirical grounds which are
generally acceptable throughout industry.'
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 12th October, 1994 in accordance
with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing arranged for 22nd November, 1994 was
postponed to allow the Union's Industrial Engineer and the
Irish Productivity Centre carry out a study of the changes.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th December, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The workers' claim is for a 15% increase in basic pay
excluding the fork lift truck differential. The fork
lift differential is covered by a separate agreement
which was negotiated between the Dublin Printing Group
of Unions and the Irish Printing Federation and covers
the whole of the industry. When the differential is
taken into account, the 6% originally conceded by the
Company results in a 2% increase to the workers
concerned.
2. The new work practices have resulted in substantial
savings to the Company.
3. Production from the 6/7 colour machines has been
maintained with a reduction in staff from an average of
3.5 persons to 2 persons. This represents an increase
in productivity of approximately 75%.
4. Concession of the Union's claim would reflect the
increased efficiencies and productivity levels of the
workers. It would also reflect the actual monetary
savings which acrued to the Company following the
introduction of the new work practices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company understood that its offer of 6% was
acceptable to the Union and would be recommended for
acceptance by the SIPTU members involved.
2. The Company has received no valid or sustainable
argument as to why it should respond to the new claim.
3. The IPC report concluded that "no supporting data exists
that can be formulated to establish the basis by which
an increase in basic rate can be determined
objectively". It is evident that the claim is based
entirely on the fact that when the Company introduced
the 820 colour print press a deal was concluded to the
order of 15% of the stab rate.
4. The job of the workers concerned has become less arduous
as a result of the work changes.
5. There is no justification in the Union's claim. When
the original claim was lodged it was presented in the
full knowledge of the Company's intention by way of new
practices. To conclude three months later that the new
practices had a value of 19% as opposed to 8% is
unrealistic, especially when the Union has failed to put
forward an objective basis not just for the inflated
claim but indeed for the original claim.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be
upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th January, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman