Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87493 Case Number: LCR11365 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ORRWEAR LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claims for: (a) payment for loss of earnings due to lay-off, (b) increased payment for one operative.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions, does not
recommend concession of either of the Union's claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87493 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11365
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11365
Parties: ORRWEAR LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims for: (a) payment for loss of earnings due to lay-off,
(b) increased payment for one operative.
General Background:
2. The Union raised these claims in March, 1987. The Company
rejected them mainly on the grounds that cost increasing claims
were excluded for the term of the current wage agreement. No
agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 6th April,
1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 11th June,
1987 but no agreement was reached. On 18th June, 1987 the case
was referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 17th July, 1987.
Claim (a) payment for loss of earnings due to lay-off:
Background:
3. This claim directly concerns four trainee workers who were
put on lay-off by the Company on 13th March, 1987. The workers
lost five hours pay and in April, 1987 the Union claimed
compensation for their loss of earnings. While this claim only
relates specifically to the four trainees the Union considers
there is an important principle involved and that the Company
should compensate all full-time workers for any period of lay-off.
The Company rejected the claim.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The workers concerned who were put on lay-off on 13th
March, 1987 were at the loss of their wages and did not
get any social welfare payment instead. This resulted
in a serious loss of earnings.
(ii) Since short-time working commenced in the Company some
years ago there has been co-operation from the Union
and a recognition of the trading position within the
industry. The workers are coming under increasing
financial hardship due to the more frequent use of
short-time working by the Company to deal with its
trading problems.
(iii) During periods of lay-off the workers have no
alternative income. They are not well paid and have no
savings to cover their bills during lay-offs when they
are receiving neither wages nor social welfare
payments. The Company has an obligation to provide 40
hours work per week to the workers and if it is unable
to do so it must alleviate the hardship suffered.
(iv) It is not acceptable that an employer can lay-off his
full time workforce to deal with cash flow or
production difficulties, which indeed may have been
avoided by other means. It is becoming clearer that
far from lay-off being the last option its the easy
option.
(v) In this specific case the issue is compounded by the
fact that this group of worker were not on the full
rate of pay (i.e. trainees) and on previous occasions
of lay-off were kept in work carrying out general work.
This was the first occasion that they also were let go.
It also happened during a lay-off in May.
(vi) At no time has the Company pleaded inability to pay due
to economic reasons.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) There is no statutory requirement to pay employees who
are put on lay-off.
(b) There is no agreement with the Union nor has it been
the Company's practice to pay employees who are put on
lay-off.
(c) All employees had been under notice of short time
working/lay-off since 9th December, 1986.
(d) The arrangement to lay-off all machine room employees
on Friday 13th March had been discussed and agreed with
shop stewards on the Monday prior. In fact a survey of
the work force was carried out by the shop stewards and
the vast majority favoured the arrangement. It was
three days later on 12th March, 1987 that the shop
stewards requested that the trainees be kept on. This
was not possible because, apart from the cost involved,
all four supervisors were being put on lay-off and
there would not have been anybody to look after the
trainees if they were brought in.
(e) The Company was conscious that trainees might not be
entitled to social welfare benefits as other employees
and the production manager was able to offer overtime
work to some trainees in order to compensate for this.
The position is that all trainees employed at that time
would have been entitled to benefit, having been 24
weeks in the employment.
(f) There were other days of lay-off in December, and
January and the Company, taking account of the
position, arranged that the trainees had the option to
work. A minority of trainees, took advantage of these
options.
(g) The Company is facing extremely difficult trading
conditions with turnover 15% down on last year in the
period January to June, and margins considerably
reduced. The Company is currently in a loss making
situation and in order to ensure survival all expenses
must be curtailed.
Claim (b) increased payment for one operative:
Background:
6. This claim concerns one worker who has been employed by the
Company since 1972 as an operative. In late 1985 and early 1986
the Company reorganised its line loading arrangements including
the worker's job. On 14th April, 1986 the worker was advised of
the duties and responsibilities of the new position. The worker
has a basic weekly rate of #115.66 and a weekly bonus of #10 for
higher responsibilities. The Union is claiming that the worker
should be paid the equivalent of maximum bonus earnings which is
#140.70 per week. The Company rejects the claim.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) It is clear that the worker's conditions of employment
are quite specifically supervisory. The worker is not
in the same category as those supervising larger
numbers of workers but a #10 differential above general
operatives is out of line with the job description.
The #10 differential equals 108% performance but the
ceiling on earnings is 125% which is what the Union is
seeking.
(ii) There are various rates applicable to non-productive
workers. This worker does not earn on a production
system and her rate should be related to the production
workers. The only fair way to assimilate this is to
place her on the equivalent of 125%. The figure of #10
is a totally arbitrary one and rather than being
related to any category creates another one.
(iii) The worker's job description as given by the Company
clearly place her duties somewhere between a general
operative on standard performance (i.e. 100%) and the
rates paid to other supervisors.
Company's arguments:
8. (a) The worker's duties and responsibilities were fully
discussed and agreed with her on 14th April, 1986.
(b) Prior to reorganisation the worker and a junior
operative were responsible for loading separate
production lines and worked independently of each
other. The effect of reorganisation was to combine
them as a team with the worker, being the more senior,
taking charge and responsibility.
(c) The worker has a basic rate which is over #20 per week
higher than other operatives (i.e. the statutory rate).
A comparison of earnings per 40 hours for the worker,
an average operative and ceiling operative earnings
(exceptional) is as follows:
The Worker Average Operative Ceiling Operative
100% perf. Earning 125% perf
Basic: # 115-06 # 95-22 # 95-22
Bonus: # 10-00 # 22-74 # 45-48
Total: # 125-06 # 117-96 # 140-70
There are only 4 other operatives and the 4 utility
operatives in the factory with average earnings in
excess of the worker.
(d) The worker is an indirect operative and her bonus is
not strictly tied to her performance as other
operatives.
(e) The worker is not fulfilling the role of a supervisor.
She does not have the authority nor the
responsibilities of a supervisor. Both she and her
assistant on loading are responsible directly to a
first line supervisor.
(f) The Company has recently introduced computer technology
to loading ticket printing and this has reduced the
workload of the two operatives involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions, does not
recommend concession of either of the Union's claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman
13th August, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.