Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88157 Case Number: LCR11836 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH ROOFING FELTS - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim for an increase in pay for one checker/storeman.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the additional handling of goods as
specified in this case comes within the scope of the claimant's
duties as set out in his conditions of employment and that he
should therefore perform these duties. The Court does not
recommend payment of compensation for this work.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88157 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11836
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH ROOFING FELTS
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in pay for one checker/storeman.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this case is employed as a storeman.
The Company decided to import a range of products (including feb)
from a sister Company in Britain, and to redistribute them from
their plant in Finglas to builders providers in Ireland. This
gave rise to a new responsibility for the checker/storeman. The
Union, on behalf of the worker, is claiming that he be compensated
for the extra responsibility and workload by having his rate of
pay increased to that of line chargehand. This would entail a
rate of £160 per week, compared with the worker's current rate of
£152 per week. The Company rejected the claim, on the grounds
that the workload of the checker/storeman has decreased
significantly in recent years, and the handling of the new product
comes within the terms of his employment. Agreement could not be
reached at local level, and on 23rd September, 1987, the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Agreement was not reached and on 25th February, 1988, the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 29th
March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was informed that he would be expected to
check all of the new range of items coming in and to ensure
that they were stored correctly. He would also be expected
to prepare the items required where orders came in.
2. The instruction to the worker was in breach of the
Procedural Agreement between the Company and the Union, which
provides for consultation and agreement between the parties
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The increase in workload caused problems for the worker
in keeping up with his duties connected with the items coming
off the production line. At the same time local management
were interfering in the handling of the new product, and
errors made by them were being referred back to the worker to
deal with. Because of the difficulties he was encountering,
and further attempts by Management to alter agreed working
practices, the worker was left with no choice but to
concentrate on those duties relevant to checker/storeman and
cease handling the new product.
4. The Union has a number of concerns arising from the issue
in dispute -
(a) The increase in workload and responsibility which
Management are seeking to impose on the worker.
(b) There is a safety aspect to the dispute in that the
material concerned requires careful handling due to its
dangerous nature and the Union feels that safety
considerations are being ignored by Management.
(c) The Company has breached its procedural agreement with
the Union.
5. The Union believes that the worker's agreed duties as
checker/storeman are onerous enough without the addition of
extra work. If however Management are insisting that he
should handle the new product, then the worker should receive
a rate appropriate to the responsibility and duties involved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The overall workload of the checker/storeman has
decreased significantly in recent years. Therefore, even
with the introduction of new lines (including feb) there is
less work to be done today than there was previously (details
supplied to the Court).
2. Within the last 12 months there have been 3 redundancies.
The Company cannot sell the quantities of felt produced in
the normal working week. In 1986 the production line was
laid off for 11 weeks, and in 1987 there was a total of 14
weeks lay-off. In 1988, the production line was laid-off for
3 weeks in January, in addition to being stopped for 1 week
due to the shipping strike. Since 15th February the
production line is running on a short-time arrangement of 2
weeks on and 1 week off.
3. This situation is going to deteriorate further unless the
plant is modified to produce the torch on felt. For this to
happen the Company must justify the investment (sister
companies in England can already produce more than is
required for the English and Irish markets). This can only
be done by the Company proving itself viable and producing a
sufficient return on investment. This coupled with the idea
of providing the customer with a more extensive range is the
reason why the Company has gone into such products as
feb.
4. The checker/storeman is responsible for the stores area.
The goods involved have varied in the past and will vary in
the future. The Company cannot be expected to increase the
worker's pay every time any change takes place in the current
range of products. The work involved is the same and can
easily be done within the normal working day. The feb line
is small and easy to handle, especially compared to the bulky
rolls of felt. The individual is already adequately
compensated for the work that he is required to do (earnings
of over £200 per week excluding overtime).
5. If the Company is to attract the required investment and
survive into the future, it must show a satisfactory return
on investment. It must respond to the changing market needs
by providing customers with the products they require at
competitive prices (therefore the Company itself must be cost
effective).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the additional handling of goods as
specified in this case comes within the scope of the claimant's
duties as set out in his conditions of employment and that he
should therefore perform these duties. The Court does not
recommend payment of compensation for this work.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
29th April, 1988.
P.F./P.W. Deputy Chairman