Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88397 Case Number: LCR11990 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CARROLL TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Claim for the re-introduction and extension of compensation payments during periods of short-time working.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88397 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: CARROLL TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED
and
MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the re-introduction and extension of compensation
payments during periods of short-time working.
BACKGROUND:
2. For a number of years the Company has operated short-time
working at its premises in Dundalk. The Union claims that in
January, 1988, it became aware of the fact that monthly-paid staff
received full salary during periods of short-time. This salary
was made up the pro-rata salary for short-time, the social welfare
payment and a further compensatory payment by the Company to make
up the difference to full salary. These payments were not
available to the weekly-paid staff. At a meeting with Management
on the 4th February, 1988, the Union alleged that the weekly-paid
staff were being discriminated against and sought the extension of
the terms to these workers. Management rejected this and advised
the Union that if it insisted on pursuing the matter Management
would have no alternative but to treat monthly-paid staff the same
as the weekly-paid workers. In addition, it would also seek to
recover the "top-up" payments which had been granted to them.
Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
the 2nd March, 1988. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference on the 7th April and the Union sought to have the
matter referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. However, having considered its position, the
Company indicated that it was unwilling to have the issue
investigated by the Court on the grounds that it did not accept
the allegation of discrimination and that therefore no dispute
existed. On the 19th May, the Union referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, agreeing beforehand to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Dundalk on the 13th
July, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has assured the Union that it did nothing
illegal or which would have affected the levels of social
welfare benefit paid to monthly-paid staff, under its
arrangement. All clerical staff in the Company are part of
the Hay/MSL Job Evaluation system. When a worker's points in
that system exceed 200 he/she is then paid on a monthly basis.
That is essentially the difference between weekly and
monthly-paid staff who work side by side in the Company.
2. The Company, by operating this system of full salary
payment to monthly-paid staff, has blatantly discriminated
against weekly-paid staff. The Union sees no justification
for this.
3. The Union is concerned that there may be an element of sex
discrimination in this case. Of the 30 to 40 monthly-paid
staff on short-time, only four are female. Of the weekly-paid
staff, only one is male and he received the compensatory
payment by mistake according to the Company.
4. Since the Union raised this issue the Company has
cynically excluded its members who had been benefiting from
the arrangement. However, it has continued the arrangement
for non-Union supervisors on the basis that they are 'on-call'
during short-time and has called some staff in for appearances
sake as there appears to be no work for them.
5. The Union requests the Court to recommend the
re-introduction of the arrangements for all weekly and
monthly-paid clerical staff and the backdating of the
arrangement for weekly-paid staff to the date of its
commencement for monthly-paid staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Before commencing the closedowns, the Company examined the
effect that the closures would have on individual employees.
It was clear that weekly paid workers would suffer a
significant loss in the first week because of the fact that
they would not receive Social Welfare Benefit for the first
three days. The losses in the second and third week would be
less severe and in the weeks thereafter would be further
diminished by virtue of employees becoming entitled to Pay
Related Benefit (maximum of £40.50 per week). In fact, after
the third week quite a large number of employees in this group
would enjoy marginal gains by virtue of income tax rebates.
2. In order to cushion the severity for the weekly-paid staff
in the first and subsequent weeks, the Company took the
following steps:
- Offered a loan facility on generous pay-back
arrangements.
- Wherever possible it chose a week coinciding with a bank
holiday, thus limiting the impact on weekly net pay.
- Arranged with the local Department of Social Welfare for
the necessary administration procedures to be
implemented on the Company premises.
- Provided to the local Department of Social Welfare all
necessary facilities to expedite administration.
- Arranged with the local Department of Social Welfare to
pay Social Welfare Benefit in the week of closure and
recovering subsequently from Department of Social
Welfare, streamlining payment arrangements.
- Timings were planned to protect employees' Social
Welfare Benefits i.e. the intervals between closures
never exceeded 13 weeks.
- In addition to the actions described above the Company
also sought and received approval from the Revenue
Commissioners to amend the rules of its Profit Share
Scheme (which is based on a sharing scheme having regard
to an employees actual remuneration and absence level)
so as to remove both the impact of loss of earnings and
the absence days suffered during the closure periods.
3. The Company decided to 'top-up" the earnings of the
monthly-paid to equate with their normal net take-home pay
because:
- Their average salary levels tend to be higher than
weekly-paid staff and because of the fixed level of
Social Welfare and Pay Related Benefits, their losses
per week's closure would be significant.
- Being employees, mostly in the Supervisory and
Management categories, they were "on call" should the
need arise during the various factory closures, because
even though there was no product being produced the
Company continued to trade.
4. The general approach by the Company to the closures was to
be highly conscious of the impact on all employees, and to
take whatever steps it could to mitigate the effect on take
home pay. With the exception of the issue before the Court
there have been no problems with employees in the way in which
the Company dealt with the closure issues.
4. 5. Because of the Union's insistence on pursuing this claim,
the Company took the regrettable step, in the March, 1988
closure, of treating the monthly-paid staff in the same way as
the weekly staff. Although the Company never accepted that it
acted in a discriminatory fashion, it saw its action in March
of this year as one which removed the charge of
discrimination. Initially the Union claimed that the Company
was wrong to treat the monthly-paid staff in the way
it did but it is now saying that all staff should be treated
in this way.
6. Apart from the merits of the case, concession of the claim
would have repercussive effects, in terms of cost, as there
are 396 other weekly-paid employees who, up to this point,
have had no complaint about their position (the Union has 8 of
the 404 weekly-paid staff in membership).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___11th___August,___1988. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman