FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SMURFIT CORRUGATED CASES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Supervisory issue and Lead Hand Rate
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Ballymount Road, Walkinstown and is engaged in the manufacture of corrugated packaging, a process which involves cutting and printing the cardboard to customer requirements and employs 156 people. The dispute before the Court concerns two issues, 1. Supervisory issue and 2. Lead Hand Rate issue.
- 1. Supervisory Issue:
In 2002, the Company outsourced the management of its Despatch Department to another Company, ‘Toners’ and an agreement was reached with the Union that the operatives would take instructions from Toners’ personnel. Sometime later the Company reinstated the position of Despatch Manager and the operatives now were taking instructions from the Despatch Manager. The dispute relates to the position when the manager is on leave. The Union contend that common practice is that someone from the floor acts up and receives the higher rate of pay. The Company’s rejects the claim and contends that staff should, in the absence of the Manger, take instruction from Toners personnel as per the previous agreement.
2. Lead Hand Rate
The Company pays a ‘Lead Hand’ rate premium in respect of certain specified machines. The grade arrangements up until 1999 on the machine at the Company was that there was a lead man on the printer, a lead man on the die-cutter and third man helping out. The Union claim that the printer on the Bobst 1575 Printer Platen carried Lead Hand Rate. In 1999, an agreement was reached between the Union and the Company that covered all terms and conditions in the plant. The Union is seeking a second premium in respect of one particular machine which they claim is effectively two machines joined to each other and doing two functions. Both can be broken up and run separately. They claim that the printer on the machine is being discriminated against and not receiving due recognition for his responsibility on the machine. The Company rejects the claim.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th November, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th February, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As the Company re-introduced the position of Despatch Manager after spending considerable money abolishing it in the first place, it must be assumed it is a necessary position. As such it should fall to be covered in the normal manner when the Manager is absent, i.e., someone from the floor acting up and receiving the higher rate. This is common practice in other areas in the factory and is one of the few opportunities for higher earnings.
2. The duties and responsibilities of the printer versus the die cutter on the 1575 machine are as equal if not more for the printer and fully justify the retention of the grade of Lead Man which was there before 1999. In all other areas, the lead man takes responsibility for the quality of the work on their machine. In recent times when a print problem occured on the 1575 however, it was the printer and not the lead man who received a letter about this.
3. The two printers on the 1575 were unfairly discriminated against in the 1999 agreement in that there was no justification for singling their machine out to lose the Lead Man grade and even if there had been there were no grounds under the grading procedure not to pay lead hand to individuals concerned based on their qualifications.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 In the recently agreed Company/Union Agreement clear provision is provided for the use of Contractors/Outsourcing.The Union members have for one year complied with the use of Contractors in the Despatch Department. The Company have honoured all wage agreements to date including the Sustaining Progress Agreement. This agreement allows for normal ongoing change and the need for continued adaptation and flexibility to maintain and improve competitiveness. The Company's request comes well within the scope of this agreement. The employees in question are not being asked to carry out any additional function. It is only the operators on one shift that have objected to the arrangement. The operatives on the other shift have co-operated fully.
4. The grading structure for Bobst 1575 Printer-Platen was fully agreed when the 1999 Comprehensive Company/Union agreement was implemented. Concession of the claim for Lead Hand rate would be in breach of the 1999 agreement and could lead to counter claims elsewhere in the Plant.The practice within the industry in general is that only one Lead Hand is assigned to this type of machine
5. The claim is cost increasing and is in breach of the Sustaining Progress agreement. The current manning and payment arrangements have been successfully operating on this machine since 1999.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends as follows:-
Supervisory Issue
The Court is satisfied that under the terms of the agreement reached at the end of 2002, the Company outsourced the management of the Despatch Department, in return for co-operation with this outsourcing, Despatch staff were regraded to 'leadman' grade with a consequent change of responsibilities. Since this agreement, the Company has also deployed some of its own management in the Despatch Department.
The Court is of the view that the Union's claim for an acting up rate to be paid to Despatch staff in the event of Company management not being available is not appropriate in the circumstances. The Court accepts that the agreement allowed for management of the Despatch Department by Toner's, this situation has not changed by the Company's actions in having a member of it's own management in place also. In light of the upgradings that took place in 2002 and of the current management structure, the Court does not see merit in the claim for payment of an acting up allowance.
Leadhand Rate For 1575 Bobst Printer-Platen
The Court is satisfied that encompassed under the terms of the 1999 agreement, which provided for a redcircling arrangement in addition to a 'buy-in' lump sum payment, was a change in manning levels to reduce leadhand positions to one leadhand position on this machine. The arrangements put in place ensured that the incumbents on the job at the time did not personally loose out. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim for the reintroduction of leadhand rates on this machine.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th February, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.