FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PRINT & DISPLAY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION) - AND - IRISH PRINT GROUP DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim by the Union for a machine rate for new machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Tallaght and employs 73 workers. In December, 2003 the Company installed a new six colour Scitex Press Jet 2 digital printer. The Company followed the Registered Agreement Procedure with regard to new machinery and devices and reviewed the operation of the machine. The Company determined that a higher rate of pay was not justified. At a meeting in March, 2004 the Union submitted a claim for a machine rate premium of 25% in respect of the two workers who operate the machine. The Company rejected the claim. In an effort to resolve the issue the Company offered a once off "training allowance" of €500 to any operative who trained and was certified to operate the machine. The Union rejected the offer. 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 on the 10th August, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 9th February, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This is a six colour machine manned by one worker. The other colour machines in the Company are run by a printer and an assistant.
2. The machine operator now carries out extra duties, extra work and extra vigilance in relation to the operation of the new machine.
3. There have been historical agreements in the Company on machine rates. On the introduction of the Sam and Thieme machines extra money was paid to the operators.
4. The operators should share in the benefits that accrue to the Company from the new technology and the one person operation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of the new machine falls within "normal ongoing change" as defined in Section 1.3 (2) of the Sustaining Progress Agreement (SP). The investment on the Scitex was made explicitly to improve competitiveness and productivity and comes under the terms of SP. The investment has secured jobs and reaffirms the Company's commitment to manufacturing.
2. The claim is cost increasing and if conceded would make the Company less competitive in an already unsustainable competitive environment.
3. The Company has experienced significant difficulties in recent years yet has paid all the increases due under SP.
4. There have been no material changes in work practices or conditions which would justify an increase in pay for operators of this machine.
5. The Company's rates of pay are already in excess of direct competitor companies.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is not of the view that a case has been made for payment of a machine rate in respect of the Scitex Press Jet 2 printing machine, but that the once off "training allowance " previously offered by the Company to any operative who trains on and is certified to operate the machine, should be increased to €1,000 and that this should be accepted by the Union Group.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22nd February, 2005______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.