FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BEAMISH & CRAWFORD - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Productivity payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim on behalf of 9 craftworkers is for the application of a €77.00 increase that was afforded to bottling plant operators in 2002.(LCR 17332 refers). The Union claims the craftworkers have afforded productivity and cooperation with change resulting from the upgrading of the bottling line. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in October, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 11th February, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The new agreement with bottling plant operators effectively extended the working day and this places additional responsibility on the claimants. The extended hours are necessary to ensure maximum efficiency from the plant.
2. There have been major changes in the working conditions of craftworkers and related enhanced productivity for the Company.
3. The bottling line upgrade will impact significantly on the claimants. They have given and continue to give cooperation with ongoing change thus ensuring minimum downtime with maximum production.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim for a higher rate of pay for craftworkers is cost increasing and precluded under the PPF and SP Agreements.
2. The level of change is minimal in the Company's view. It should be accepted as a normal requirement to meet routine work of operating an effective and efficient plant.
3. The current pay rates of craftworkers in the employment are ahead of the market rate of pay in the industry.
4. The Company is facing very severe competition in the marketplace and cannot afford to further increase its costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union, on behalf of craftsmen, sought payment of €77.00 per week as a productivity payment similar to that paid to the Bottling Plant Operatives as a result of the operation of the new Bottling Plant.
Having investigated the detail of the changes required by the craftsmen, the Court is satisfied that there is some merit in their claim for a productivity payment, however, it does not accept that the changes required are radical in nature, or comparable to that required of the operatives. The Court also notes that there were significant savings attached to the operatives' agreement due to a reduction in manning levels. Accordingly, the Court recommends that following a period of four months, the situation should be reviewed to measure the changes involved for the craftsmen following which the parties should discuss an appropriate productivity payment.
If agreement cannot be reached, any outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Due to the difficulties outlined by the Company, the Court does not recommend the introduction of annualised hours at this point in time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd February, 2004______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.