Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87471 Case Number: LCR11271 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH INDUSTRIAL GASES - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of seven operatives for compensation for changes in conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
5. The rationalisation/redundancy Agreement which was introduced
in the Company was necessitated by the fall-off in demand for the
Company's product. All the Branches of the Union were parties to
the Agreement and the present claim was made in accordance with
the special provision at Section 6 of that Agreement. Having
heard the submissions made by the parties the Court is satisfied
that the general position obtaining as a result of the reduction
in staffing from 8 to 7 in the D/A plant has not resulted in any
significant change in the work requirements of the remaining staff
in the Section. The Court, therefore, does not recommend any
general compensatory payment.
In relation to altered conditions, the Court is of the view that
the "middle" man is adequately compensated by the retention of his
shift allowance but recommends that each of the two "spare" men
should be paid #250 in full and final settlement. The Court does
not find that there is a basis for any other payments.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87471 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11271
CC87777 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11271
PARTIES: IRISH INDUSTRIAL GASES
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (NUMBER 14 BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of seven operatives for compensation for
changes in conditions of employment.
Background:
2. The Company has been engaged in the manufacture of medical and
industrial gas in Ireland for over fifty years. In November,
1986, it announced a rationalisation plan whereby reductions were
to be effected in the manning levels in various areas of the
Company. It was proposed to reduce the manning level in the
Dissolved Aceytline (D/A) plant from eight operatives to seven.
Threatened industrial action arising from the rationalisation plan
was averted following a conciliation conference at the Labour
Court in February, 1987. Section 6 of the agreed settlement terms
stated "Both parties will immediately commence meaningful
negotiations regarding the resolution of No. 14 and Cork No. 6
Branch outstanding items in the Plan". This included the question
of the reduction from eight to seven operatives in the D/A plant,
for which the Union sought compensatory payment to the remaining
seven. In the course of local discussions, the Company rejected
this claim. The Union operated the seven man system but stated,
in May, 1987, that it would not continue to do so after June 1st
if its claim was not resolved. Agreement was not achieved
however. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 11th May, 1987. A conciliation conference was
held on 11th June, 1987. No agreement being reached, the matter
was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing
took place on 17th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union is seeking a lump sum payment to the seven
workers concerned in compensation for changes in
working conditions as a result of the reduction from
an eight man to a seven man operation.
(ii) The seven workers will suffer a loss of overtime as a
result of the new system.
(iii) Two chargehands will now be required to work alone for
two four hour periods, maintaining the same output as
previously when they were not required to work alone.
(iv) One of the seven workers is particularly disadvantaged
by the new system since he will now have to incur
canteen expenses whereas previously he could go home
at meal times.
(v) The D/A operatives have always worked as a unit and
any settlement should include all seven workers.
(vi) There have been other instances of workers employed by
the Company receiving compensation for changes in
working conditions (details supplied to the Court).
(vii) The Company is financially in a position to concede
the claim. There is a saving of approximately #18,000
per annum on the eighth man and there should be some
element of this distributed.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Agreement on rationalisation provided for a
reduction in staff in the D/A Plant from eight to
seven. It is clear that the agreement requires that
the Plant continue to operate with the seven remaining
staff. The Union's claim is in contravention of the
terms agreed at conciliation.
(b) The level of work now required from each individual
has reduced due to a drop in volumes.
(c) Similar reductions in numbers with consequent
implications for staff occurred on many previous
occasions. In these cases no compensatory payments
were paid to any remaining staff.
(d) Management does not accept that there is a drop in
overtime earnings for the staff concerned.
(e) The Company cannot entertain a claim on behalf of the
seven operatives. It had an element of sympathy for
the "middle" man who transferred from shift to a
permanent day job. However, since he retained his
full shift differential, there is no basis for a
compensatory payment being made to this employee. The
Company also expressed an element of sympathy for the
position of two "spare" men who provide relief cover.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The rationalisation/redundancy Agreement which was introduced
in the Company was necessitated by the fall-off in demand for the
Company's product. All the Branches of the Union were parties to
the Agreement and the present claim was made in accordance with
the special provision at Section 6 of that Agreement. Having
heard the submissions made by the parties the Court is satisfied
that the general position obtaining as a result of the reduction
in staffing from 8 to 7 in the D/A plant has not resulted in any
significant change in the work requirements of the remaining staff
in the Section. The Court, therefore, does not recommend any
general compensatory payment.
In relation to altered conditions, the Court is of the view that
the "middle" man is adequately compensated by the retention of his
shift allowance but recommends that each of the two "spare" men
should be paid #250 in full and final settlement. The Court does
not find that there is a basis for any other payments.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th June, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman