Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8788 Case Number: LCR11214 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MINCH NORTON LTD - and - NEETU |
Claims on behalf of four workers for:- (a) compensation for loss of earnings, and (b) compensation for ongoing co-operation.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) - Compensation for loss of earnings:
9. In the light of the fact that the claimants have not suffered
any financial loss so far the Court does not recommend concession
of the claim. If subsequently it can be shown that there is a
loss attributable to the change to natural gas the claim should be
resubmitted.
Claim (b) - Compensation for ongoing change:
10. The Court recommends that this claim be dealt with in the
context of the discussions leading to the comprehensive agreement
provided for in the 26th round settlement.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8700088 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11214
CC87111 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11214
Parties: MINCH NORTON LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of four workers for:-
(a) compensation for loss of earnings, and
(b) compensation for ongoing co-operation.
General Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the malting industry. The above
claims which were served on the Company by the Union were rejected
and, as no progress could be made at local level, the matters were
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 5th
February, 1987 and the matters were referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court investigation into
the dispute was held in Portlaoise on 7th April, 1987.
Claim (a) - compensation for loss of earnings:
3. Since October, 1982 a fitter was required to carry out
maintenance work on burner equipment. This work was carried out
on day work from Monday to Saturday but on Sundays was catered for
by the fitter rostered for call-out duty. However, in October,
1986 the Company changed over to natural gas and the need for
constant maintenance was reduced. The Union sought compensation
for the loss of earnings arising from this change. The Company
rejected this claim.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) As a result of the changeover to natural gas the
workers lost this weekend on-call arrangement which has
been in operation for the previous five years and which
was of a compulsory nature. The workers will
consequently lose #503.30 each per annum.
(ii) Sudden withdrawal of a payment which has been paid over
a long period can place a worker in a very difficult
position financially. Standards of living are geared
to a regular income. The workers should be at least
cushioned against this loss.
(iii) There is a precedent in the Company for the payment of
compensation for loss of call out.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The changeover to natural gas was a direct response to
increasing competition resulting from an over supplied
market. The Company was reacting to outside forces
over which it had no control. It should not be
penalised for its foresight which hopefully will
safeguard jobs for the future.
(b) The Company should reasonably expect craft employees to
accept the need for ongoing change and to adapt to
ongoing change as part of their normal duties. For
them to claim compensation for any change goes against
the reason for employing them.
(c) The Company's equipment is capable of using natural
gas, heavy fuel oil or marked gas oil. Currently, the
Company is using gas as a fuel, but the choice of fuel
for the future will be totally dependent on the
relative prices of the various fuels. It is possible
the Company will revert to heavy fuel oil, with a
consequent need for fitters to clean the rotary cup
each day.
(d) Call-outs relating to cleaning the rotary cup are only
part of the total call-out system. Other work has
ensured that the total earnings from call-outs are not
reduced and are, in fact, slightly up. This is not to
say that the Company is guaranteeing other call-out
related earnings.
(e) At no time has there ever been any guarantee of
overtime to any craft employee. The craftsmens' basic
rate is inclusive of call-out allowance. In Athy, a
fitter is on call every fourth week. He is expected to
be contactable. He is not required to be at home at
all times and the particular circumstances of the call
will determine whether he needs to come in immediately
or not.
Claim (b) - Compensation for ongoing change:
Background:
6. On 15th August, 1986 the Company confirmed its offer on the
26th pay round which included:-
- 5.50% increase for 12 months from 1/1/1986
- #75 lump sum payment
- 1% from 1/9/86 towards the conclusion of a
comprehensive agreement
- revised service pay scheme.
The comprehensive agreement is still under negotiation. The Union
served a claim on the company for compensation for ongoing change.
The Company rejected this claim.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) The Union has not accepted the 1% as compensation for
the agreement. It is still negotiable as far as the
Union is concerned. Whatever concessions the Union
will give in return will be clearly stated. Any
further change will have to be negotiated.
(ii) Any updating or change in skills is very significant.
The workers' skills have been updated now that natural
gas is used by the Company.
(iii) There is precedent for payment for ongoing change in
the Company.
Company arguments:
8. (a) There is no precedent within the Company for
compensating craftsmen for on-going change.
(b) The Company needs its employees to co-operate with any
on-going change if it is to remain competitive. This
is essential given the background of the international
market.
(c) The Court has previously rejected claims of this nature
(Recommendations No. 9709 and 7880 refer).
(d) The Company should not be penalised for being
farsighted. Technological change and investment is
essential if market share is to be maintained and jobs
are to be secured. If stagnation is to become the only
other alternative, then the Company has no future. The
reason for the existence of craftsmen is their
adaptability to technological change and they should
not be compensated for such change.
(e) The changeover to gas may well be of a temporary
nature, and if a precedent of payment for such
changeover is established, the Company would face heavy
costs at each subsequent changeover, should they occur.
(f) There was no suggestion until now that the agreement
for a 1% increase for introduction of the Comprehensive
Agreement was not in fact an agreement. The 1% was
accepted by all the unions involved, including this
Union, and will be paid retrospectively once the
Comprehensive Agreement is signed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) - Compensation for loss of earnings:
9. In the light of the fact that the claimants have not suffered
any financial loss so far the Court does not recommend concession
of the claim. If subsequently it can be shown that there is a
loss attributable to the change to natural gas the claim should be
resubmitted.
Claim (b) - Compensation for ongoing change:
10. The Court recommends that this claim be dealt with in the
context of the discussions leading to the comprehensive agreement
provided for in the 26th round settlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
27th May, 1987 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman