Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88711 Case Number: LCR12102 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROADSTONE PROVINCES LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of general operatives for relativity with fitters.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that the difference in work patterns between
the fitters and general operatives arises out of the production
requirements. The fact that the different work patterns give rise
to different earnings does not, in the Court's view, provide valid
grounds for concession of the Unions' claims.
The Court does not therefore recommend in favour of the claims.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88711 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12102
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROADSTONE PROVINCES LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of general operatives for relativity with
fitters.
BACKGROUND:
2. In January, 1987 the Labour Court issued a recommendation (LCR
No. 10928 refers) concerning re-organisation at the Clondalkin
Tile Plant. One of the issues dealt with in the recommendation
was the elimination of paid meal breaks and compensation for this.
Following the issue of LCR No. 10928 meetings took place and in
February, 1987 it was agreed between the parties that each worker
would receive #2,500 for the acceptance of LCR No. 10928 (#1,350
of which was in respect of the elimination of paid meal breaks).
This sum was paid to all the workers i.e. factory, craft, general
and clerical and all workers went on an unpaid thirty minutes meal
break. Shortly after this the Company resumed paying the fitters
for the meal break. In October, 1987 the Unions' representing the
general workers requested that these workers receive similar
treatment both in relation to the payment of meal breaks and the
application of a chargehand's differential received by the
fitters. A local level meeting was held on 8th March, 1988 at
which the Company rejected the claims and its position was that
the fitters received a paid meal break as they were required to
work these breaks. No agreement could be reached and on 9th
March, 1988 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 28th
April, 1988 at which no progress was made and in September 1988
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 1st
November, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rationalisation plan required major changes and
sacrifices from the general workers who have also experienced
other changes and large reductions in employment numbers in
the last few years. The Company has consistently stressed the
need for teamwork in the plant following the re-organisation.
However, at the same time it has treated the general workers
less favourably than other groups. Management has said that
fitters have to work their breaks but get a break later and
that general workers sometimes get their breaks later. There
is no difference in these situations. Two groups of workers
were presented with a rationalisation plan and any payments or
concessions for acceptance of the plan should be applied
equally.
2. In negotiations on the rationalisation proposals it was
made clear to management that if any other group of workers
achieved better terms then the general unions would insist on
the application of these terms to the workers. The fitters
now have a chargehand allowance and a half hour's extra pay
over and above what has been conceded to the general workers
for accepting the same rationalisation proposals. The general
workers should have relativity of treatment and should receive
the special arrangements conceded to fitters.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Shortly after agreement was reached on LCR10928 it
became necessary to change the moulds from one profile to
another at lunch time, because of the shortage of pallets
necessary for the eight hour production run. The tile making
machinery must be switched off and the production stopped
during the mould change which is carried out by the fitters.
Therefore, it is necessary for the fitters to work through the
lunch break and take a shorter break at a later time to suit
production and they are paid straight through from 8.00 a.m.
to 4.30 p.m. The production workers in effect cannot continue
working through the lunch break and are entitled to and always
get a thirty minute meal break. There is no basis for payment
of this break.
2. The differentials between craft and general workers
scales have been established for many years. Some fitters and
some general operators carry rates in excess of the scales,
which are personal to themselves for historical reasons.
There is no basis for any chargehand rate for general
operators who have not got chargehand responsibilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that the difference in work patterns between
the fitters and general operatives arises out of the production
requirements. The fact that the different work patterns give rise
to different earnings does not, in the Court's view, provide valid
grounds for concession of the Unions' claims.
The Court does not therefore recommend in favour of the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
29th November, 1988 --------------
U.M./U.S. Chairman