Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94483 Case Number: LCR14655 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SCA PACKAGING LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
1. Regrading of machine operators. 2. Pension Scheme. 3. Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions by both parties on the 3 issues
involved the Court finds as follows:-
(1) Pension Scheme
As the Company, at the Court hearing, committed itself to
introducing a Pension Scheme when the financial performance
of the Company allowed, the Court recommends that this
situation is reviewed annually with a view to agreeing a date
for commencement of discussion on a Pension Plan.
(2) PESP Clause 3
Having considered the arguments made by both sides the Court
does not find merit in the Union's claim.
(3) Grading
Taking into account all the relevant considerations, the
Court rejects the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94483 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14655
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SCA PACKAGING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Regrading of machine operators.
2. Pension Scheme.
3. Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which was established in Edenderry in 1990,
employs approximately 21 people in the manufacture of packing
cartons.
In late 1993, the Union sought recognition and in February,
1994, following the finalisation of the recognition issue,
submitted a number of claims concerning the pay and
conditions of employment of the workers concerned. Local
level discussions took place but no agreement was reached and
the following claims were referred to the Labour Relations
Commission:-
(1) Regrading of machine operators.
(2) Remuneration of office staff.
(3) Fork-lift grade.
(4) Pension Scheme.
(5) Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress.
A conciliation conference took place on 15th September, 1994.
As no agreement was reached on items 1, 4 and 5 above they
were referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 21st December, 1994.
PENSION SCHEME
The Union submitted the claim in accordance with the terms of the
Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW). The Company's
position is that the introduction of a Pension Scheme would not be
appropriate, at this time, as the Company is not satisfied that
the fundamentals are correct to allow it to compete in an
aggressive market.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The union is merely looking for a commitment from the
Company to a date on which discussions concerning a
Pension Scheme can commence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is operating in a strongly competitive
market and any increase in its cost base at this stage,
could threaten its future viability.
2. The Company has introduced a sick pay scheme with its
attendant cost implications and cannot be expected to
absorb further cost increases.
3. The Company is committed to the long term future of the
Edenderry operation, provided that the cost base can be
retained at a competitive level. It requires a
realistic level of expectation from the workforce.
CLAUSE 3 PESP
The Company claims that the workers concerned were not members of
a Trade Union in 1991 and negotiated through their shop floor
representatives.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers concerned have made a considerable
contribution to the Company over the period of the PESP
by their ongoing co-operation. In the circumstances the
payment of the 3% under clause 3 is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. By agreement the Company was not a party to the PESP.
It negotiated pay increases for the year 1991/1992/1993
with the workers shop floor representatives which
amounted to 14% over the period of the PESP. In the
circumstances there is no justification in the Union's
claim.
REGRADING FOR MACHINE OPERATORS
The Union is seeking the regrading of two machine operators as
machine technicians. The Union claims that the operators are
underpaid, given the complexity of the machines used and the
differential of #23 that exists between the technicians and
operators.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The operators are paid considerably less than other
workers in similar employment and machine operators in
the industry generally.
2. The Union's claim for basic rate of #187.37 already
applies within the factory. The operators
responsibilities include the setting-up of equipment and
the measurement of the quality of product. Their pay
does not reflect their responsibilities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Union's claim cannot be justified. It does not
reflect the actual work content as the operation of
these machines requires substantially less man
management and technical skills than required by the
machines operated by the technicians.
2. The claim is contrary to the PCW and the terms of the
agreement in which the Union accepted the existing
conditions of employment.
3. Concession of the claim would have considerable knock-on
affects in relation to existing pay relativities which
are established in Edenderry and also reflect Company
practice in the Lurgan plant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions by both parties on the 3 issues
involved the Court finds as follows:-
(1) Pension Scheme
As the Company, at the Court hearing, committed itself to
introducing a Pension Scheme when the financial performance
of the Company allowed, the Court recommends that this
situation is reviewed annually with a view to agreeing a date
for commencement of discussion on a Pension Plan.
(2) PESP Clause 3
Having considered the arguments made by both sides the Court
does not find merit in the Union's claim.
(3) Grading
Taking into account all the relevant considerations, the
Court rejects the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th January, 1995 Finbarr Flood
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.