Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88815 Case Number: LCR12161 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WATERFORD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of a shop steward for payment of productivity bonus while engaged on Union business.
Recommendation:
8. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends tha the Co-op provide cover to the shop steward to the
equivalent of 2 days per week and other external meetings such as
conciliation conferences, Rights Commissioner's hearings etc.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88815 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12161
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WATERFORD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a shop steward for payment of productivity
bonus while engaged on Union business.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to 1986 an agreement existed whereby the previous shop
steward, a driver, received his average weekly earnings inclusive
of driving bonus while engaged on Union duties on site.
3. In September, 1986 the Society reached a new arrangement on
the shop steward's expenses whereby, on the basis of a buy out
arrangement he would be paid for a 40 hour week. The arrangement
provided that:-
(a) The shop steward will clock his card as per site
procedure.
(b) The shop steward will be paid on the basis of a 40 hour
week unless productively employed driving.
(c) The shop steward will work at his normal duties at least
two days per week.
(d) The shop steward will leave the site on Union business
only with the approval of Management.
4. In June, 1988 the shop steward resigned on the grounds of ill
health. In July, 1988 the current shop steward was elected and
claimed that he should be allowed 3 days to carry out his Union
duties and that he be paid his bonuses and loss of expenses for
those 3 days. The Society rejected this claim and offered to pay
one days loss of expenses plus #250 compensation for loss of
earnings on condition that where possible the Union business be
carried out on Mondays. In addition the Society would further
agree to pay expenses when conciliation, Labour Court and other
such meetings were in progress.
5. This offer was rejected by the Union and the matter was
referred by the Union to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 26th July, 1988. In September, the Society agreed to
attend a conciliation conference which was held on 21st October,
1988. As no agreement was reached the parties consented to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on 10th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. From the Union's experience in the area it is not possible
for a shop steward to carry out Union/Management business on
just one day a week and to confine the day to a Monday is not
practicable. The shop steward has responsibility for 350
workers in seventeen branches scattered all over the
south-east region (details supplied to the Court).
2. This particular industry is undergoing constant change on
all fronts and these changes are being negotiated on an
ongoing basis on site.
3. There have been numerous incidents which required the shop
steward to be in attendance (details supplied to the Court).
None of these incidents could be dealt with on a one day a
week basis.
4. The previous shop steward felt that as the arrangements
negotiated at local level in 1981 were headed as "his
remuneration" that he had the right to have the driving bonus
payment bought out (which he did without any consultation with
his colleagues). He did return to driving duties for a short
period after the buy out but thereafter he remained full time
on site attending to Union business.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The practice of making such payments to the previous shop
steward was clearly bought out and concluded. No such
payments were made to shop stewards prior to the arrangement
with the last shop steward.
2. The Company's offer is more than reasonable considering
that the last settlement has been bought out.
3. Because of the reduction in staff numbers (due to
rationalisation) and the structure of the various branches
(details supplied to the Court) it should under normal
circumstances be possible for the shop steward to carry out
all his driving duties.
4. The recent appointment of an assistant shop steward on
site in Dungarvan also facilitates the handling of ongoing
Union problems and relieves the shop steward of considerable
duties. As well as the assistant shop steward there are a
further 6 representatives on site in Dungarvan. In total this
gives a ratio of one representative to every eighteen members
at peak or one representative to every eight members in the
off season.
5. The position of shop steward is voluntary and the present
holder was clear on Management's position on payment of
expenses prior to his election.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends tha the Co-op provide cover to the shop steward to the
equivalent of 2 days per week and other external meetings such as
conciliation conferences, Rights Commissioner's hearings etc.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
9th December, 1988 Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.