Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87458 Case Number: AD8761 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation. No. CM 17,654 concerning the regrading of 6 workers employed as cleaning and overhaul (C & O) operatives.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
finds no justification for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation
and rejects the appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87458 THE LABOUR COURT AD61/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 61 OF 1987
PARTIES: UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS (EUROPE) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. No. CM 17,654 concerning the regrading of 6
workers employed as cleaning and overhaul (C & O) operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986 the Company negotiated a new comprehensive agreement
with the unions representing its workers at its plant in
Letterkenny. During the course of the negotiations various claims
were processed by the parties. One of the claims received was on
behalf of C & O operatives for regrading due to them taken on
extra duties. The Company offered to regrade the workers from
grade 4 to grade 5 which would give them an increase in basic pay
of #2.50 per week. According to the Union, this offer was
rejected in October, 1986, and that it expected the Company to
renew negotiations on the matter. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. At the
Rights Commissioner's hearing held on 7th April, 1987 the Union
contended that a commitment had been given by the Company to enter
into further negotiations on the claim for regrading for C & O
operatives after the comprehensive agreement had been signed. The
Rights Commissioner adjourned the hearing to enable the Company to
check the Union's statement with the manager in question. A
reconvened hearing was held on 15th May, 1987. The Company
contends that no commitment had been given by it to enter into
further negotiations on the claim and that as far as they
understood the claim had been dealt with and was catered for in
the comprehensive agreement which was signed in December, 1986.
Following his investigations the Rights Commissioner issued the
following recommendation on 18th May, 1987.
" Where there is conflict about what was agreed or understood
orally all one can do is to fall back on the written word.
There is conflict on whether or not any commitment has been
fulfilled and on whether there was an inadvertent omission.
The Union representatives who claim that there was a
commitment are adamant that it was given and Management are
equally adamant that it was fulfilled within their offer.
The written signed Agreement is however conclusive and I must
accept it as representing the present position.
Nonetheless there is a provision in the Agreement (Clause 5
from "Statement") which commits the Company to review the
present grading structure during its currency. Obviously
that was not intended to take place for perhaps another year
or two but because of the unusual nature of the present claim
and the conflict in evidence I recommend that the review for
C & O operatives commences before the end of the year
provided it is understood that this commits neither side to
any particular outcome and that this Recommendation, if
accepted, gives no right to any other category to expect a
similar early review."
On the 5th June, 1987 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held in
Letterkenny on 15th July, 1987 to hear the appeal.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Rights Commissioner's recommendation does not
adequately address the problem. The Union contend that
a commitment was given by the plant manager that
further negotiations on the claim would commence as
soon as the agreement was signed. The Company's letter
of 10th April, 1987 makes no reference to the plant
manager's statement, which infers that it has not been
refuted by them.
(b) The Company argue that further negotiations cannot be
entered into because of the "no cost increasing claims"
clause in the agreement. It is accepted that in normal
circumstances this would apply. However in this case
there are two mitigating factors; the plant manager's
statement and clause 40 of the agreement which states
that "if any matters have been inadvertently omitted
from this agreement that they will be discussed locally
approved and appended to this agreement".
(c) The Union accept that there is not a grade presently
within the structure to reflect the skill that these
workers have. However as an interim measure until a
proper job evaluation has been carried out they should
be placed on grade 6. The present payment of an extra
#2.50 per week is inadequate compensation for the extra
duties which these workers have taken on (details
supplied to the Court).
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company contends as it did at the Rights
Commissioner's hearing, that there was no such
omission with reference to the C and O operatives.
The offer as implemented to regrade the operatives to
grade 5, was the Company's complete response to their
claim. The Company would reiterate that any claim
entered now is precluded by the no cost increasing
claims clause in the agreement.
(ii) The Rights Commissioner's recommendation provided
that the Company should look at the position of the
C and O operatives within the grading structure
before the end of the year, provided that it is
understood that this commits neither side to any
particular outcome and that this recommendation if
accepted, gives no right to any other category to
expect a similar early review.
(iii) While the Company considered that the terms of the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation placed a more
onerous requirement on the Company than the
agreements it had entered into with the Union, it was
willing to accept that as an interpretation of the
agreement, it was bound to accept the Rights
Commissioner's findings.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
finds no justification for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation
and rejects the appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
29th July, 1987.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.