Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87681 Case Number: LCR11496 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NET - and - NEETU;ETU;AEU |
(a) Claim on behalf of craftsmen in Marino Point for payment of lump sum to restore relativities with the process workers. (b) Claim on behalf of approximately ten electricians in Marino Point for compensation for alteration of shift frequency.
Recommendation:
10. (a) Payment of lump sum to restore relativities:
The Court is of the opinion that the payment made
related solely to potential up-grading available only
to certain non-craft grades and did not affect grade
relativities. The Court therefore does not recommend
concession of the Unions' claim.
(b) Compensation for alteration of shift frequency:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties
the Court is satisfied that the shift arrangements are
in accord with the terms of Clause 3.1 of the
Company/Union agreement and is also satisfied that as
no loss has been incurred by the workers concerned,
there are no grounds for concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87681 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11496
CC871375
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11496
Parties: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES
(FORMERLY NITRIGIN EIREANN TEORANTA)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION, ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION,
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. (a) Claim on behalf of craftsmen in Marino Point for
payment of lump sum to restore relativities with the
process workers.
(b) Claim on behalf of approximately ten electricians in
Marino Point for compensation for alteration of shift
frequency.
General Background:
2. The Unions' served the above mentioned claims on the Company
which were rejected. A conciliation conference was held on 22nd
May, 1987 at which agreement could not be reached and subsequently
it was agreed to refer the issues to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 7th October, 1987.
CLAIM (A) - PAYMENT OF LUMP SUM TO RESTORE RELATIVITIES WITH THE
PROCESS WORKERS
Background:
3. In the Company's grade structure, grades I to V relate to
semi-skilled and manual grades. In Marino Point, process
operators are in grade III, while in Arklow process operators are
in grades I and III. In 1979, the process operators in Cork
claimed regrading from grade III to grade I. A Labour Court
hearing was held in 1980 (L.C.R. No. 6149 refers) at which the
claim was rejected. However, agreement was reached between the
parties that grade II would be applied to the workers but this was
not implemented due to an embargo on cost increasing claims. In
1985 the Union claimed the implementation of the agreement on
regrading with retrospection. The claim was referred to the Labour
Court (L.C.R. No. 10242 refers) but the recommendation was
rejected by the Union. At a subsequent conciliation conference
held in February, 1986 it was agreed that the process operators
would receive #3,600 each compensation. The craftworkers are now
claiming payment of same.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) An agreement between the Trade Union Group and the
Company sets the relativities between all grades and
the original operator grade was set by comparison to
the craftsmen's rate. This relativity was recognised
by the Company and used as an argument (due to the
possible consequential effects) in its submission to
the Court in respect of the process operators. The
Company breached the agreement by processing that claim
through the Court for one constituent of the agreement.
(ii) The Court on two occasions rejected the claim for
regarding of process operators. The Company even
though it did not accept the justification of regrading
compensated the workers concerned and has already
implemented compensation to other general grades who
were not party to the original claim.
(iii) Any changes to the agreed wage structures or
compensation for not implementing changes if not
applied equally and equitably to all grades brings the
wage structure into disrepute. The craft workers
should also receive the #3,600 payment.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The #3,600 payment to the operators was made to redeem
a promise which would enable management to retain the
integrity of the graded structure by not applying what
was no more than an industrial relations solution. No
regrading took place and no change has been made in the
relativities existing in the grading structure. If the
operators had been promoted to grade II, relativities
would not have been affected within the Company's
graded structure, where senior process operators in
Arklow have served in grade I for years.
(b) The payment was particular to operators in Marino
Point and was made in line with the Company's policy of
buying out items at issue. The craftsmen were never
promised regrading and have themselves two significant
buy out offers from the Company at present, together
with a comprehensive agreement offering 9% over 3
years.
(c) Two other groups of workers have been regraded at
Marino Point and no claims have been made regarding
disturbance of relativities. If the #3,600 payment was
awarded to any other section it would have a disastrous
effect on the Company's grade structure and would cost
approximately #600,000 at Marino Point alone.
CLAIM (B) - COMPENSATION FOR ALTERATION OF SHIFT FREQUENCY
Background:
6. Clause 3.1 of a Company/Union agreement is as follows:
"It is a condition of employment that all employees
shall carry out their normal duties on day work,
two-shift, three-shift or four-shift if required, or
change from one system to another. Notice of transfer
will be three weeks. The original rate will be
retained for three weeks should there be any loss of
earnings due to the transfer. Where maintenance
personnel work 16 weeks shift followed by 36 weeks on
days, the question for loss of earnings, due to the
transfer, does not arise".
7. The number of electricians in Marino Point has gradually been
reduced from thirteen and now stands at ten (as from 26th January,
1987). As a result the frequency of shiftwork has increased and
the Union is seeking the application of three weeks shift rate
when transferred to days and compensation.
Union's arguments:
8. (i) There was always sufficient manning in the electrical
department for electricians to work only one third of
the year on shift in accordance with Clause 3.1 of the
agreement (details supplied to the Court). The Company
also stated in 1979 (details supplied to the Court)
that manning levels would be brought to a level where
craftsmen would not normally work more than one third
of the year on shift.
(ii) With the reduced manning the shift frequency has
increased and the electricians would now have to work
more than one third of the year on shifts. The
electricians should receive three weeks shift pay when
transferred to days in accordance with Clause 3.1 of
the agreement. Supervisory personnel who work shifts
for approximately 7 to 8 months of the year continue to
receive their shift rate for the full year and
holidays.
(iii) Arising from the changes the Company have ongoing
savings of #100,000 per annum at present rates and as
the workers have to change to a more un-social shift
regime they should be entitled to at least #10,000
each.
Company's arguments:
9. (a) As the frequency of shiftwork has increased so also has
the earnings of the group due to extra shift premiums.
The extra benefit from the increased shift frequency is
#432.10 per man each year (details supplied to the
Court) and therefore the claim does not come under the
criteria of compensation.
(b) Clause 3.1 of the agreement clearly states that
electricians could be asked to work permanent
shiftwork, like other groups of workers, instead of
their current part-time shiftwork for which they
receive the shift premium of 1/3 which is paid to
permanent shiftworkers. There is no compensation
allowed for in the agreement as a result of changing
from one system to another, except where a particular
change would result in a loss to the worker concerned.
Shift frequencies can and do change from time to time
and in some cases at the request of the workers
themselves. As there is no loss of earnings to the
workers the claim should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. (a) Payment of lump sum to restore relativities:
The Court is of the opinion that the payment made
related solely to potential up-grading available only
to certain non-craft grades and did not affect grade
relativities. The Court therefore does not recommend
concession of the Unions' claim.
(b) Compensation for alteration of shift frequency:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties
the Court is satisfied that the shift arrangements are
in accord with the terms of Clause 3.1 of the
Company/Union agreement and is also satisfied that as
no loss has been incurred by the workers concerned,
there are no grounds for concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
___________________
2nd November, 1987.
U.M./J.C. Deputy Chairman.