Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86886 Case Number: LCR10934 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LTD - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the staff status of 3 craftmen.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Union's claim for staff status
for the personnel involved be conceded.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86886 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10934
CC861577 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10934
Parties: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LTD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the staff status of 3 craftmen.
Background:
2. The Company, which is in existence for 20 years, employs
approximately 400 personnel in the manufacture of ladies tights.
Weekly staff conditions are applied to a number of positions
within the Company. In addition to normal conditions weekly staff
conditions provide for:-
(1) Payment on a current week basis;
(2) The provision of one additional holiday after 5 years'
service, and two additional holidays after 10 years'
service;
(3) Make-up of Social Welfare and Disability Benefit during
periods of certified illness for up to 12 weeks in the
case of personnel with over 5 years' service;
(4) Make-up of Social Welfare Maternity Benefit;
(5) Obligatory Membership of the Pension and Life Assurance
Schemes.
The Union sought the application of staff status to the workers
concerned on the basis that the previous holders of the painter
and carpenter posts had staff status and also its application to
the fitter. The Company rejected the claim and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 12th
September, 1986. A conciliation conference was held on 2nd
October, 1986. As no agreement could be reached both sides agreed
to have the issue referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held in Killarney
on 3rd December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The non application of staff conditions to the workers
concerned is against the general spirit of the
agreements that exist between the Company and the
Union.
(b) The previous holders of the position of carpenter and
painter enjoyed staff conditions. The Union is
surprised at the Company's attitude as it is the
positions that carry the status of staff rather than
the named people.
(c) When staff conditions were claimed for the position of
fitter, the reason given for their non application was
because the holder was serving an apprenticeship. As
this person has now served his time, staff conditions
should apply.
(d) The workers concerned are the only craft workers to
whom staff conditions do not apply and it is a matter
of principle that these individuals should not be
excluded from any benefits.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) This claim was lodged and processed at a time when it
was contrary to the no cost increasing claims clause of
the 25th round Company/Union wage agreement.
(ii) The day maintenance fitter position has been in
existence for over 12 years and there are no changes in
circumstances which would justify the application of
staff conditions.
(iii) A once-off application, almost a decade ago, of staff
conditions to the carpenter and painter positions does
not create a precedential situation. The current
carpenter and painter who were appointed over 8 and 6
years ago respectively, took up the positions in the
full knowledge that staff conditions were not
applicable.
(iv) The application of staff conditions to craft positions
is a contractual matter and is not provided for in
Company/Union agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Union's claim for staff status
for the personnel involved be conceded.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
3rd February, 1987
M.D./J.C