FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD CRYSTAL - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Rate of Pay of machine operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim, on behalf of approximately 50 machine operatives at the Company's Dungarvan and Kilbarry plants, for upgrading of their rate of pay from a level based on the semi-skilled basic rate to a rate equivalent to that of a platform worker (i.e., Ballblower, Bit Gatherer) which is at a level between the semi-skilled rate and craft rates. The issue arose following the introduction of new Tank Furnaces at Dungarvan and, subsequently, at Kilbarry. The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that the rate for machine operatives was a recent and newly agreed rate (1994 Agreement) and pointed out that it would not consider measures that might lead to any unraveling of that agreement. The Company added that the 1994 agreement provided that claims for increased pay/regrading could only be submitted in cases of restructuring and that, as the machine operative jobs were in existence in 1993, no restructuring had taken place.
The Union argued that the job had changed considerably since it was first introduced, and that it required a lot more skill than the normal semi-skilled jobs, citing the insistence by management on selection following aptitude test for the jobs, and also the decreasing role of engineers in the area.
The dispute was the subject of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 4th of March, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 2nd of May, 1996, and carried out a works inspection of the plants at Dungarvan, Butlertown and Kilbarry, on the 27th of June, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is permissible under the 1994 agreement as clause 5.2 of the agreement allows for claims arising from restructuring of jobs. The introduction and advancement of machine technology in both Dungarvan and Kilbarry has resulted in radical restructuring in the blowing sections.
2. Despite the reduction in the rates of pay in 1990 and 1993, the nature of the machine operatives' jobs has been changing on an ongoing basis. The Company stated that "it is very important that the operatives are brought to a level where they can solve all of the problems that can arise". The appointed machine operatives worked under the engineer for nearly 4 years after which they were at the proficiency level required, and no longer needed the assistance of engineers.
3. The level of competency and skill required to operate these machines continued to increase up to the present and the adaptation of the machine operatives to the ongoing change with machine technology has achieved a level of skill far beyond the initial duties of the jobs.
4. The introduction of the automatic stem-line in December 1993/January 1994 was the most radical change to the machine operators' jobs. Twenty-two positions were required to be filled. As the blowing section was undergoing substantial restructuring and a reduction in the numbers of blowers, the machine operatives' positions were advertised within the Blowing Section. Because the position had changed dramatically, the Company had to re-examine its training requirements. The former on-the-job training was no longer sufficient to meet the skills required to operate the complex technology of the machines. The Company has acknowledged, on numerous occasions, the benefits and savings achieved from the machines and the operators' technical innovation and more detailed accurate production information as they increase their skill (details supplied to Court).
5. The increase in productivity and the production cost-savings to the Company arising from the auto stem-line are dramatic (details supplied).
6. The Company cannot reasonably argue that the entry requirement and training programme for a machine operative is comparable to the early requirements and training for a semi-skilled operative. The appropriate rate for a machine operative would equate to the rate for a platform worker. When this is measured against the increased productivity and cost-reduction savings achieved by the Company, the claim is valid and justifiable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This claim is a cost-increasing wage claim, which is contrary to the terms of existing agreements in this regard.
2. The machine operative position is a relatively new position within the Company for which, only as recently as January, 1993, the Company agreed with the Union the rate of pay appropriate to the position, taking full account of the duties, skill, knowledge, training and responsibilities contained therein.
3. The Company's investment in the Tank Furnace project was based on the existing agreed rate of pay and terms and conditions of employment. This claim is contrary to the spirit of the 1994 Agreement. It has also been rejected by the Company at all stages of the agreed negotiations procedure.
4. The Company's progress to date on competitiveness is based upon the solid foundation laid through key agreements, which must be protected or the Company will fail to remain competitive in the long term.
5. There is no real basis established in support of this claim. The Union has nothing to lose in pursuing the claim to the Labour Court in accordance with our agreed procedures.
6 If this claim was to be conceded, the additional cost burden would have to be countered through additional cost-reduction measures in accordance with the basis of the 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement, in order to deliver the ongoing minimum cost savings.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions from the parties and has also carried out a works inspection at the three plants. As a result, the Court has concluded that there was no "job restructuring" as envisaged in Clause 5.2 (ii) of the 1994 agreement. The Court, accordingly, rejects the Union's claims for regrading.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
23rd July, 1996______________________
M.K./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.