Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95665 Case Number: LCR15082 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ORIFLAME MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED (Represented by IRISH BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Additional payment for assembling boxes.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written presentations.
The Court is not in a position to decide if the change in the
method of operation currently being carried out by the assembly
operators represents a significant change in the work content.
Accordingly, the Court considers that the parties should jointly
arrange for the present and past methods to be studied.
The parties should discuss the results of the studies and seek to
resolve their differences.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95665 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15082
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ORIFLAME MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED
(Represented by Irish Business and Economic Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Additional payment for assembling boxes.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of cosmetics. It
employs approximately 200 workers, including 92 Assembly Operatives
(AOs) and 20 General Operatives (GOs). The AOs work in the
production area of the factory on the assembly lines. The GOs
functions include having all relevant components available for the
AOs. GOs are paid approximately £9 per week more than AOs.
Prior to June 1994, the GOs supplied pre-assembled boxes ready for
use on the lines to the AOs. AOs who were occasionally asked to
assemble boxes were paid the difference between the 2 grades on a
pro-rata basis. From June, 1994, AOs were expected to assemble
boxes on line on a regular basis. The Company stopped payment of
the differential when it introduced taping machines at the end of
the assembly lines. The Company maintains that this had made the
task of the AOs easier. The Union is claiming that AOs who have to
assembly boxes should be paid the differential.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference took place on 11th September, 1995. No
agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 28th November, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1),
Industrial Relations act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 25th January, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 5.1 of the current Company/Union states:-
"where mobility of employees is required, it is a
condition of employment that the workers concerned
will provide no objection to changing jobs,
providing there is no downgrading of the rates of
pay for the same standard of performance."
Workers rates of pay have been downgraded. They are
expected to do work without payment where previously they
were paid.
2. The claim would only benefit the AOs who are doing the
job of boxmaking and only for each day on which the work
is done. The cost to the Company would be very little.
The job description of AOs does not mention the assembly
of boxes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no extra work involved for the AOs in the new
process as the work of assembling boxes is balanced by
the introduction of the taping machine. The Company
cannot afford to concede payment for every minor change
in work practices.
2. The claim is contrary to the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (PCW) as it cost increasing.
Because AOs rotate on the assembly line on an ongoing
basis, it would be impossible to administer a fixed
payment for the time involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written presentations.
The Court is not in a position to decide if the change in the
method of operation currently being carried out by the assembly
operators represents a significant change in the work content.
Accordingly, the Court considers that the parties should jointly
arrange for the present and past methods to be studied.
The parties should discuss the results of the studies and seek to
resolve their differences.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th February, 1995 Tom McGrath
C O'N/U.S. -------------
Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR CIARAN O'NEILL, COURT SECRETARY.