Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88334 Case Number: LCR11907 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims by the Union on behalf of 100 general operatives for:- (a) Payment for lay-off during a storm. (b) Withdrawal of a written warning which issued to an employee. (c) Loss of earnings due to transfers from one category to another.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) - Payment for Lay-off During Storm:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (b) - Withdrawal of Written Warning:
The Company has responded positively to the Court's request that
the written warning be withdrawn.
Claim (c) - Loss of Earnings Due to Transfers:
The Court recommends that this issue be considered in the context
of the review over the period October 1987 to October 1988 as
recommended by the Court at (2) of Recommendation No. 11444.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88334 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR11907
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union on behalf of 100 general operatives for:-
(a) Payment for lay-off during a storm.
(b) Withdrawal of a written warning which issued to an
employee.
(c) Loss of earnings due to transfers from one category to
another.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following a strike at the Company's plant in December, 1986,
January, 1987, settlement terms were agreed about the bonus scheme
and an amendment was made to the Plant Agreement and signed by
Union and Management. Since then it has been the subject of
various meetings between the Union and the Company on a matter of
interpretation. The Company's interpretation of the settlement
terms were the subject of a Labour Court hearing and
Recommendation (11444) in 1987. In the current pay round talks,
the Union again raised the question of the implementation of the
bonus scheme on a general basis, and also the matter of the
withdrawal of a written warning to an employee. As no agreement
was reached at local level these matters were referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 5th April, 1988.
A conciliation conference took place on the 2nd May, 1988, but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 5th May, 1988. A Labour
Court hearing took place on the 24th May, 1988.
3. CLAIM (A) Payment for lay-off during a storm:
BACKGROUND:
1. General operatives in the Company reported for work at their
normal starting time of 8.00 a.m. on the 9th February, 1988. A
severe storm was in progress and the employees, having worked for
three hours, were requested by management to leave the building
for safety reasons, as there was a risk of storm damage to the
roof. The employees were not paid for the remainder of the day.
The Union is claiming payment for the extra five hours but the
Company maintains that it is entitled to compensate the workers
only for hours worked, and rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Employees reported for work as normal at 8.00 a.m. on the
9th February, 1988. At 11.00 a.m. they were instructed by
supervisors to leave the plant because there was a risk of
injury due to possible storm damage to the roof. There was no
prior consultation with Shop Stewards, even though the storm
was forecasted up to forty eight hours previously. It was not
until the end of the week that the Union established that the
Company would not make full payment for the days work.
2. Employees, through their Union/Company Agreement, are
obliged to attend work from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Monday to
Friday. The Company, unless otherwise stated, are obliged to
provide work, and work was unavailable on that day (9th
February). As the interruption was for approximately five
hours, the Company could afford to pay the workers, without
any great financial loss.
3. As some of the employees live as much as twenty miles from
the plant, and are dependant on lifts home in many cases at
5.00 p.m. they were obliged to wait around at their own
expense until this time. Had they known that they were being
paid only for three hours, they would not have reported for
work. Many other employers pay their workers in the event of
them being sent home. In previous situations where work was
halted, the first day was always paid in full.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Management advised employees to go home at 11.00 a.m. for
safety reasons because a severe storm was in progress. All
employees were not paid for the rest of the day.
2. It has been custom and practice in the Company down
through the years to pay for hours worked, but should it be
necessary to send workers home immediately after commencing
work, they would receive a payment for three hours.
5. 3. The Labour Court in a previous recommendation (LCR11,652
refers), did not recommend payment for hours not worked. The
lay-off was forced on the Company by virtue of the danger to
the employees and the circumstances were totally outside the
Company's control. The Company also lost production as a
result of the storm.
6. CLAIM (B) Withdrawal of written warning
BACKGROUND:
1. An employee was transferred from his own job, due to lack of
work, to another assembly job with which he was not familiar. He
received a written warning because he failed to achieve production
targets, and despite a Union request, the Company refused to
withdraw the warning.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The employee was issued a warning because he failed to
reach 100% production performance. The employee was not
familiar with the type of work allocated to him and drew his
supervisor's attention to this fact, without response. The
employee also had work available at his own place of work.
2. The Company was requested at conciliation to review the
warning in the light of the employee's performance over a six
month period but refused to do so. The Union requests that
the warning now be withdrawn.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The employee has twelve years' service with the Company
and is familiar with assembly work. The job he was
transferred to (because of lack of work at his own workplace)
was also an assembly one. The employee's average output was
seventy five per cent but his daily output was between twenty
and thirty per cent per day, and the production manager
noticed that the worker was making little effort to achieve
efficiency.
2. The job itself is not very difficult and records show that
a person who was hired and had no knowledge of assembly work
achieved one hundred per cent output in the first hours of
employment with the Company. The Company therefore feels that
there were substantial grounds for issuing the warning.
9. CLAIM (C) Loss of earnings due to transfers from one category
to another.
BACKGROUND:
1. Employees were transferred from their normal places of work to
other areas without consultation with the Union. As a result of
these transfers, workers lost their capacity to earn their normal
full production bonus, and consequently suffered a loss of
earnings.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. Because they were transferred from their normal places of
work to other employments, workers suffered a loss of
earnings. The workers had sufficient work available at their
normal places of work, and had they been left there, they
would have suffered no financial loss.
2. The Union is not opposed to mobility and transfers in
themselves, but feels that the Company, by constant use of
transfers, are lowering the wages in the Mechanical and
Mechanical Assembly Divisions of the plant. This is in breach
of the return to work agreement of February 1987, which was
signed by the Union in good faith. As a result of these
transfers, and taking into account a seven per cent increase,
workers are losing between twenty and thirty pounds on 1986
wage rates.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The Company is not in breach of the return to work
agreement, and has, at all times, where transfers have taken
place, looked at the options available in order to maintain
the highest levels of production and efficiency which must be
maintained if the Company is to survive.
2. The Company would rather not have to transfer employees,
because production performance suffers as a result of the
worker's unfamiliarity with the operation that they have been
transferred to. Management must, however, have the right at
all times to try to achieve the most efficient levels of
production, and must therefore have the right to transfer
employees from one job to another as already agreed in the
back-to-work agreement (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) - Payment for Lay-off During Storm:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (b) - Withdrawal of Written Warning:
The Company has responded positively to the Court's request that
the written warning be withdrawn.
Claim (c) - Loss of Earnings Due to Transfers:
The Court recommends that this issue be considered in the context
of the review over the period October 1987 to October 1988 as
recommended by the Court at (2) of Recommendation No. 11444.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
_______________________
__________June,____1988. Nicholas Fitzgerald,
T. O'D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.