Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2003

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17445

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/672
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17445
(CC02/4395)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990



PARTIES :
SMURFIT WEB PRESS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION)

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
SUBJECT:
1. Rate for a new folding machine.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Company is engaged in the production of magazines, brochures, catalogues, and promotional print and employs 90 workers. It recently acquired a folding machine from Smurfit Print, a Smurfit Group Company which closed down. Smurfit Web Press already has a folding machine and pays no additional rate over and above the basic operative rate for that machine. However Smurfit Print paid an additional rate in respect of it's folding machine. The Union claims that this rate should also apply with the machine that was transferred into Smurfit Web Press.The Company 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 by the Labour Relations Commission in November, 2002. A Court hearing was held on the 14th March, 2003.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Unions' claim for the rate is common practice in the Print Industry and is provided for in Clause 11 of the Registered Employment Agreement.

2. Many workers in the Company already have rates ranging from 15% to 2%.

3. The introduction of this machine, and the work contract that came with it, has meant increased responsibilities for workers and requires alteration in shift patterns to accommodate its operation.

4. When Smurfit Print closed the Unions were happy to retain work and machinery within the Smurfit Group. However, it was never their intention that in doing so they would erode hard won rates and conditions.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Union's claim is opportunistic. The Company complies with and has applied all rates which have been agreed between the Irish Printing Federation and the Dublin Printing Group of Unions. No specific rate for folding machines is included in such agreements.

2. Payments to folder operators at Smurfit Web Press are in accordance with existing in- house agreements.

3. The folding machine installed in 2001 is similar to the other folding machine which has been in operation at the Company since 1993 and is covered by existing agreements.

4. The Company is operating in a very competitive and declining market. Concession of the claim would create a precedent for repercussive claims and further add to the Company's cost base.

5. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has considered the Union's argument in relation to the payment that should apply for the operation of machinery that was transferred from one Smurfit Company to another.

While the Union has quoted Clause Eleven of the Registered Agreement with regard to new machinery and devices, the Court is of the view that this clause only applies when new or amended machinery is introduced. In this case the machinery in question is neither new nor amended and therefore the Court does not believe it is covered by Clause Eleven.

The Court equally is not satisfied that in a situation where machinery but not the operators transferred from one company to another, that a rate of pay should transfer with that particular machinery, especially in this situation where a similar machine is being operated at a specific rate.

The Court is conscious that, in this particular case, if the Union's claim was conceded two different rates would apply in the same Company for operating the same machinery.

Given these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in this case.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
20th March, 2003______________________
TODChairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow