Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88430 Case Number: AD8868 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MONAGHAN MUSHROOMS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST/8 concerning the greasing of loaders by loader drivers.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having carefully considered the submissions in the
appeal does not find grounds for altering the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation and decides that it be upheld i.e. the workers
concerned should carry out the greasing duties during the normal
working day and accept the normal responsibility associated with
that work.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88430 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6888
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: MONAGHAN MUSHROOMS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. ST/8 concerning the greasing of loaders by
loader drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which was founded in 1981 is engaged in the
compost production mushroom growing and mushroom processing
business. It is Ireland's largest mushroom supplier and gives
employment to 720 people in the Monaghan area both directly and
indirectly. There are 170 workers directly employed. The Company
exports all its output mainly to U.K. supermarket chains.
3. In the past loader drivers were responsible for routine and
regular greasing on their loaders. The Company sought the
re-introduction of this practice following a period of time when
this work was carried out by maintenance personnel. Following
consultations between the relevant parties the Union informed the
Company that the workers would not carry out the duties unless
they received a substantial additional payment.
4. The Company referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. Following an investigation the
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation dated 27th
February, 1988.
"The facts are that precedent in this case is established to
the advantage of both parties. For 2½ years the drivers have
not done this work. It is equally true that for a similar
period before, they did this work without additional pay as
part of their normal duties. As a variation the work was
done "off the clock" for £10 a week by agreement between the
parties. This arrangement lasted for 6 months. It ended
when the work was done "on the clock."
Given the general parlous state of the industry and mindful of the
relative success of this operation employing 160 people and the
need to consolidate in difficult market conditions, I recommend
that the drivers should in the circumstances undertake this work
during the normal working day. If the need arises for the work to
be done "off the clock" I recommend in those circumstances alone,
that the £10 per week previously paid be increased to £12 per week
to each driver undertaking the work. This is in accord with the
existing agreement for such work which in my view is still
extant."
5. The drivers subsequently commenced greasing but advised the
Company through their Union that they would not accept
responsibility for this greasing. The Company then appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in
Monaghan on 26th October, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The drivers are presently carrying out the greasing and
the Company has advised them formally that they have full
responsibility for this greasing. The Company would request
that the Court would uphold the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and recommend that the drivers carry out the
greasing duties which include taking full responsibility for
the greasing performed. The Union's position that the
employee's carry out the greasing but do not assume
responsibility is unreal and has the potential to lead to
serious conflict in the event of any problems arising.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The workers have never objected to doing the work but they
insist that it should be rewarded as it was previously,
although not necessarily on the same basis. The only time
this work was done without payment and as part of the normal
day was when the scale of the operation was much smaller.
There was one small loader and a tractor. There are now 4
loaders, 2 turners and 3 hoppers. When this work was given to
maintenance, it was a recognition that this is, in fact, a
maintenance function.
2. There are no facilitates so the work has to be done in the
open at the mercy of the elements. The conditions prevailing
are extremely wet and dirty. A shed apparently provided for
this work, is inaccessible due to the storage of other goods.
3. While currently doing this work when instructed by
Management since the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, the
workers feel that they should not have to accept
responsibility unless paid for so doing. Since Management
have been responsible themselves for this work, it has been
neglected on many occasions with machines which should be
greased daily or every second day not being done for long
periods. Clearly this is not an ideal situation. If workers
were paid and were in a position to accept responsibility for
this work the Company would have to allow the time to do it.
4. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was somewhat
anomalous insofar as it awarded an increase in a rate that
wasn't used for years, and at the same time said it should not
be used as he was recommending that the work be done during
normal hours. It ignored the fact that custom and practice
over the previous 3 years had removed this work from the
drivers completely.
DECISION:
8. The Court having carefully considered the submissions in the
appeal does not find grounds for altering the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation and decides that it be upheld i.e. the workers
concerned should carry out the greasing duties during the normal
working day and accept the normal responsibility associated with
that work.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
______________________
17th November, 1988. Chairman
M.D./J.C.