Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8731 Case Number: LCR11097 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LISSADELL TOWELS LTD - and - ITGWU |
Interpretation of Labour Court Recommendation No.8977.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, does not consider that the Union's interpretation
of the Court's Recommendation is correct and does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8731 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11097
CC861766 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11097
Parties: LISSADELL TOWELS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Interpretation of Labour Court Recommendation No.8977.
Background:
2. The Company, which manufactures towels and related products,
employs approximately one hundred and eighty workers. The claim
concerns four Knotters on whose behalf the Union is claiming the
application of 80% of a special payment which the Company makes to
Weavers.
3. In June 1984 the Labour Court issued Recommendation No. 8977,
which concerned a claim on behalf of four Knotters for an
improvement in remuneration. In that Recommendation the Court
recommended as follows:-
The Court considers that the Union's offer to
increase productivity should be accepted and
implemented by the Company. The Court further
considers that in the light of these improvements
an increase in the knotters' remuneration is
warranted. The Court, therefore, recommends that
the knotters' bonus be increased to 80% of the new
actual average bonus of weavers, plus an extra 3p
per beam and the skill allowance should be
increased by #2. These improvements should apply
from the date of this recommendation.
In 1985 the Company reached an agreement with the Weavers whereby
a special payment would be made to Weavers working a shift at less
than full manning level while still maintaining efficiency levels
appropriate to a fully manned shift. The extra payment to Weavers
amounts to approximately #4 per worker on each shift on which it
is paid. The Union is claiming that under LCR8977 the equivalent
of 80% of the extra payment should also be applied to the four
Knotters. The Company rejected the claim.
4. No agreement was reached at local level and on 28th October,
1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 16th
December, 1986 but no agreement was reached. On 20th January,
1987 the case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 25th February,
1987 in Carrickmacross.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) When the Company calculates the Knotters' bonus it
leaves out any special payments which are paid to
Weavers in addition to actual bonus earned on a
particular week. The Union considers that such
payments should be included in the calculation which is
used to arrive at the Knotters' bonus. This would be
in keeping with the proper interpretation of LCRNo8977.
Any loss in earnings suffered by Weavers is reflected
in Knotters bonus, therefore, they should also receive
their percentage of compensation as paid to Weavers.
(ii) The Union considers that had these special payments for
Weavers been in existence at the time of LCR8977, they
would have been included in the Court's Recommendation.
These payments should now be included in the
calculation of the Knotters' bonus.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company's special arrangement with the Weavers is
an attempt to redress the effects of absenteeism on
production. The Company makes a special payment to
Weavers who operate a shift at normal capacity when
such a shift is undermanned. The Company cannot
justify an additional special payment to the knotters
in the above circumstances.
(b) The Company pays the equivalent of the wages of an
absent Weaver to the remaining Weavers for taking on
his workload and maintaining efficiencies. The Union
is seeking that the Company should pay more than it
would in normal circumstances when the shift is fully
manned.
(c) The Knotters have no input in this situation and on
this grounds alone no extra payments can be justified.
(d) When the Knotters' relationship was first established
in 1983 it was agreed that there would be no knock-on
effects. This claim is an attempt to breach that
agreement. The Company cannot justify or permit such
action.
(e) There is nothing in LCR8977 to suggest that the
Knotters' claim should be conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court, does not consider that the Union's interpretation
of the Court's Recommendation is correct and does not recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
------------------
3rd April, 1987
T O'M/U.S. Chairman