Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87827 Case Number: AD886 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LUND INTERNATIONAL BV - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM/17920 concerning the rates of pay of two workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the arguments set out in the submissions of
the Union and the Company in this appeal, the Court is satisfied
that the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is soundly
based and, therefore, decides that it be upheld.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87827 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6/88
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13 (9)
PARTIES: LUND INTERNATIONAL BV
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CM/17920 concerning the rates of pay of two
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as quality control
inspector and relief quality control inspector. The Union is
seeking the application of a 3% increase paid to other workers as
part of a rationalisation agreement in April, 1987. The Company
rejected this claim on the grounds that these two posts had been
redesigned and regraded in November, 1986 with the rates being
increased by 9.87%. The Union rejected this argument. As no
agreement could be reached the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner who investigated the dispute and recommended as
follows:-
"The two claimants got their deal in November, 1986 and this
adequately compensated them for any effect which the
subsequent upgrading of operators had on their jobs. Any
extension of the 3% to others was justified on significant
change in duties and responsibilities. Consequently there
is no justification for recommending that the 3% be applied
to the pay of the Quality Control Inspector or his relief.
By letter dated 3rd November, 1987 the Union appealed this
Recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in
Mullingar on 9th December, 1987
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The November, 1986 agreement is separate from the April,
1987 agreement. It was not concluded in anticipation of
another agreement to cover the remainder of the workforce and
did not preclude compensation in the event of any further
changes in the pay levels of the other workers.
2. The workers concerned are the only two out of a
shopfloor workforce of 58 who did not benefit from the
rationalisation agreement.
3. 3. The 3% increase was extended to workers outside the
machine operator function on the grounds of significant
changes in duties and responsibilities. The workers here
concerned have also had changes in their duties and
responsibilities but they were not compensated.
4. Before April, 1987 the relief quality control inspector,
who is a machine operator when he is not on inspection duties,
was paid #0.38p per hour when on set up duties which all
operators with set up responsibilities received. This #0.38p
was absorbed into the 3% in the April 1987 agreement but the
releif quality control inspector was not compensated even
though he now has more set up duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In all cases where the increase of #5 (or approximately
3%) was paid the workers were required to upgrade their skill
levels and assume additional duties and responsibilities,
which resulted in an upgrading of their jobs and pay levels.
2. The jobs of the workers concerned in this claim were
redesigned and regraded in November, 1986 in return for an
increase of 9.87% at that time. It is, therefore, not true to
say that these workers were unfairly excluded from the April,
1987 agreement, which was clearly a regrading of some other
job with the addition of new skill, duty and responsibility
levels.
3. The regrading of the quality control job in November,
1986 did not give rise to consequential claims from lower
grades. The regrading of other jobs should not have given
rise to any claim in this case.
4. There has been no substantial change in the quality
inspection function since the April re-organisation of the
Company.
5. The rate of pay of the relief quality inspector was
established by a Rights Commissioner's recommendation as being
related to that of quality inspector. The relief quality
inspector therefore benefitted from the regrading exercise of
November, 1986 and his rate of pay is well above the regraded
machine operator rate. His rate, therefore, already
incorporates the agreed amount of additional pay for the
addition of setting skills and responsibilities.
DECISION:
5. Having regard to the arguments set out in the submissions of
the Union and the Company in this appeal, the Court is satisfied
that the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is soundly
based and, therefore, decides that it be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
20th January, 1988 --------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman