FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHN A WOODS LIMITED - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Wage increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a major manufacturer/supplier of concrete blocks and related material. In 1995/1996, the Company installed a Finlay block-making machine which is fully automatic and computerised, and a strapping machine, in a number of locations. The machine has increased production from 20,000 blocks per day to 40,000 plus. Extra plant was also erected. The new plant and machines are in the Classis area and are maintained by the maintenance department.
Following the introduction of the new machines, a number of general operatives who operate the machine were upgraded from Grade 4 to Grade 2. This resulted in a pay increase of £11 per week. The Union's claim is that the craftsmen (Grade 1) in the maintenance department should get a similar pay increase for the extra responsibility involved in maintaining the machines.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 11th of December, 1997. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st of July, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of October, 1998, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the introduction of the new machines in 1995/1996, LCR15552 recommended an upgrading for the operators from Grade 4 to Grade 2, resulting in an increase of £11 per week. The maintenance workers should get a similar increase because of the increased responsibility for them.
2. In 1995, the numbers in the maintenance department was 10 fitters and 1 helper. The current manning level is 7 fitters. The new machines have resulted in considerable benefits for the Company. The Company should enter into dialogue with the Union on the issue of gain-share in relation to the reduction in manning levels/increased productivity.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's 5 pay grades, which have been in operation since 1974 and still exist, were established on a responsibility basis - those with more responsible duties receive higher wage rates. This was the reason for increase in pay for the general operators in 1995/1996. The introduction of the Finlay machine/strapping machine meant added responsibilities. There is no extra work or responsibility for the maintenance workers. An electrician is on site if the machine needs specialised maintenance.
2. The Union's claim is cost-increasing and, therefore, excluded under Partnership 2000. If the maintenance workers were to get an increase, other grades would look for a similar increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
It has not been established to the satisfaction of the Court that any specific additional responsibilities or a requirement for higher skill levels have devolved to the claimants from the introduction of the new plant. Moreover, it is noted that the Company has a single grade for all craftworkers which applies regardless of the level of responsibility.
In the case of the operator grade, what occurred was a regrading which did not disturb the overall grading structure.
In all the circumstance of this case, the Court does not accept that any basis exists in which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th October, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.