Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86522 Case Number: LCR10833 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ARKLOW POTTERY - and - ITGWU |
(a) Claim on behalf of two night sweepers for compensation for loss of overtime. (b) Claim on behalf of one polisher for compensation for loss of potential earnings. (c) Cessation of shift premium paid to two mill operatives.
Recommendation:
12. Having considered the submissions from both parties in
respect of the three elements of the claim before it, the Court
finds as follows:-
Claim (a) - Loss of regular overtime for night sweepers.
As the loss arose due to rationalisation, the Court does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Claim (b) - Non payment of compensation to one operative on
polishing machine.
The Court finds no basis for awarding compensation for loss of
anticipated earnings.
Claim (c) - Cessation of shift premium.
The Court recommends that the Company pay both claimants
compensation by way of a lump sum of #1,300 and that the payment
of #25 per week cease from 30th November, 1986.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86522 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10833
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10833
PARTIES: ARKLOW POTTERY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. (a) Claim on behalf of two night sweepers for compensation
for loss of overtime.
(b) Claim on behalf of one polisher for compensation for
loss of potential earnings.
(c) Cessation of shift premium paid to two mill operatives.
General Background:
2. In January/February 1986, major rationalisation took place in
the Company involving redundancies, a new wages and bonus system,
new work practices and manning levels and investment from the
parent Company. Agreement was reached that, in the case of
employees who suffered a direct loss of earnings, compensation of
39 weeks' loss would be paid. Arising from the reorganisation the
current claims arose which, failing resolution at local level,
were referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
27th March, 1986. A conciliation conference took place on 19th
June, 1986 (earlier date not suitable to one of the parties) but
again no agreement was reached and the matters were referred to
the Labour Court. A Court hearing took place on 12th November,
1986 in Arklow.
Claim (a) Compensation for loss of regular overtime to two night
sweepers.
Background:
3. Two night sweepers work from 4.00 p.m. to midnight in the
casting shop. As a result of the reorganisation these workers
lost a half hour's overtime per day which had been worked in the
glazing section since 1983. A half hour's overtime per day worked
in the mould shop was retained. The resultant loss of earning to
each of the claimants is #13.25 per week. The Union is claiming
application of the 39 weeks compensation formula in this case.
Union's arguments:
4. The Union considers that the workers concerned, having worked
regular rostered overtime over a period of years, are entitled to
compensation of 39 weeks' loss, as per the formula agreed.
Company's arguments:
5. The loss of overtime arose directly as a result of major
re-organisation arising from major losses which involved
redundancies and a significant loss of earnings for 40 other
employees. The 39 week formula was agreed with the Union and was
specifically to apply only to basic wages and bonus earnings. The
re-organisation and new payment structure has increased both
claimants' pay by #3.00 per week before any overtime.
Furthermore, the overtime lost was only being worked for less than
3 years and both workers retain regular overtime of .50 hour per
day.
Claim (b) Compensation to polisher.
Background:
6. The claimant was employed as an operative in the warehouse
area and in mid 1984 was appointed as a stand-in/trainee polisher
in the polishing department. As part of the reorganisation in
1986, the polishing rate was reduced from #147.00 to #143.50 and
polishers were paid compensation of 39 weeks loss. One of the
polishers volunteered for redundancy and the claimant was
appointed to the position of polisher at the rate of #143.50. The
claimant is now seeking application of the 39 weeks compensation
formula to him on the basis of potential loss, due to the drop in
the polishers rate.
Union's argument:
7. The claimant was always paid the polisher's rate in the past.
The 39 weeks compensation formula should have applied to him as he
suffered a loss in potential earnings. The original polisher
would have received this compensation had he not opted for
redundancy. The Union considers that this worker is being treated
less favourably than other workers in the polishing department.
Company's argument:
8. The Company consider that this is a totally opportunistic
claim. There has been no loss for the claimant, he has in fact
received an increase of #15.27 per week. In 1985 the claimant
operated as a polisher for only 45.50 days for which he was paid the
polishers' rate, despite the fact that, for much of this time, he
was training in this operation.
Claim (c) - Cessation of shift premium.
Background:
9. Two mill operatives worked from 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. daily
for which they received a 25% shift premium. Following the
reorganisation, their hours were changed to 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.
daily. Both claimants suffered a loss (excluding shift), of #3.55
per week as a result of the new wage/bonus structure for which
they were compensated, using the 39 weeks formula. The Company
contends that the shift premium should no longer apply to this
operation while the Union disputes this.
Union's argument:
10. Prior to 1984 there were four men employed in this area, but
due to changes in the methods of production the number was reduced
to two. These two men disputed the work loads that were expected
of them and claimed extra money for the extra work. They were
informed by management that extra payment could not be made
because it would cause other claims to be made from other parts of
the factory. As part of compensation for the extra work,
management informed the men that the shift payment would be
continued. This was accepted by the workers and there have been
no complaints from either management or workers since this
agreement was reached. It is not acceptable to the Union that,
because starting time has been changed from 6.00 a.m. to
7.00 a.m., the workers should suffer a drop in income of #25 per
week.
Company's argument:
11. It is the Company's contention that the shift premium should
no longer apply to this operation. The claimants can work normal
days with an 8.00 a.m. start if they wish. The loss of shift
premium means a reduction of #25 per week in earnings and the
Company has proposed compensation of 12 months loss at #25 per
week from 1st February, 1986. Given the present circumstances
this is considered to be reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
12. Having considered the submissions from both parties in
respect of the three elements of the claim before it, the Court
finds as follows:-
Claim (a) - Loss of regular overtime for night sweepers.
As the loss arose due to rationalisation, the Court does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Claim (b) - Non payment of compensation to one operative on
polishing machine.
The Court finds no basis for awarding compensation for loss of
anticipated earnings.
Claim (c) - Cessation of shift premium.
The Court recommends that the Company pay both claimants
compensation by way of a lump sum of #1,300 and that the payment
of #25 per week cease from 30th November, 1986.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___28th__November,__1986. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman