Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88733 Case Number: LCR12108 Section / Act: S67 Parties: W. B. NUNN LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that the increased capacity and efficiency
of the Alvan drier must reflect to some degree in the work on the
Monsun plant which thereby handles a lower proportion of the total
throughput. There are however so many other factors which effect
time involved that on the evidence before it the Court does not
feel that the claim for loss of earnings is sustainable,
particularly in the light of the continued increase in overall
annual earnings of the workers concerned.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88733 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12108
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: W. B. NUNN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged primarily in the handling of malting
barley under contract. This involves the supply of seed,
fertilizer etc to farmers, who then grow the malting barley. At
harvest time the barley must be taken in quickly and dried as soon
as possible because if the barley heats before drying germination
will take place rendering the seed unsuitable for malting. The
drying process is handled by two drying units the "Monsun plant"
and the "Alvan plant." The two workers concerned in this dispute
are employed on the "Monsun plant." The Alvan plant is normally
started first as it is quicker and easier to start and stop. As
soon as grain intake increases sufficiently the Monsun plant is
started. Both plants then run simultaneously on a 24 hour a day
basis until completion of the vast bulk of the harvest. The
Monsun plant is then shut down first and the Alvan plant completes
the harvest. Prior to the 1986 harvest, the Company modified the
Alvan drier so that it could handle grain at a faster rate. It
now handles 14 tons per hour as against the pre-modified rate of
12 tons per hour. The drying period was also reduced. In July,
1986, the Union, on behalf of the workers served a claim on the
Company for compensation. As no identifiable loss had been
experienced at that point it was decided to wait until the drying
process was completed and examine the earnings at that stage.
When statements of gross earnings were examined, the Union claimed
that they showed considerable reduction in earnings over previous
years. As no progress could be reached at local level, the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
21st May, 1987.
Conciliation conferences took place on 16th July, 1987, and again
on 25th February, 1988. No agreement was reached, and on 26th
September, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Waterford on 12th October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. By modifying the plant the Company has increased
productivity and reduced the earning potential of the
employees concerned. A definite loss has been identified, and
all the Union is asking is for compensation to cushion the
workers against the effects that this modification has had to
date and will continue to have in the future.
2. The volume of throughput in 1987 was practically the same
as that for 1985, yet the drying period was substantially
reduced (details supplied to the Court). Earnings have not
been reduced as drastically as they might have been, but this
can be accounted for by annual wage increases, and extra days
spent on harvest work. There is no denying the fact that the
alterations to the drier affected the workers earnings and
their earning potential.
3. Instead of earning potential increasing it is being
decreased. The Company has gained substantial savings. The
Court is urged to consider the ongoing effects of the
modification, and to recommend in favour of the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The modification to the Alvan drier was forced on the
Company due to complaints. Failure to change would almost
certainly have led to loss of business. (All new driers
purchased carry these modifications as standard). Thus the
change should help ensure continued employment at the Company
by maintaining maximum grain intake and maximum utilisation of
resources.
2. The Company does not guarantee overtime earnings during
the harvest period or indeed any other period. The level of
earnings varies from year to year due to a number of factors
many of which are outside the Company's control. No loss of
earnings can be identified if an analysis of the last five
harvests is carried out (details supplied to the Court).
3. It is not possible to single out one plant against the
other and claim that a loss of potential earnings has
occurred. In any event the two individuals could work on
either the Monsun or the Alvan plant by virtue of seniority.
They have chosen to continue working on the Monsun plant.
4. 4. Concession of the claim would undoubtedly have
repercussive effects within the Company. The Company must
endeavour to provide a fast and efficient service to customers
and it was on this basis that the decision to invest was
taken. An obvious and beneficial side effect of this
investment is that by ensuring maximum intake the security of
employment of all employees is enhanced. Earning levels in
the Company over the past five years have steadily increased.
In view of the foregoing the Company asks the Court to
recommend in favour of it's position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts that the increased capacity and efficiency
of the Alvan drier must reflect to some degree in the work on the
Monsun plant which thereby handles a lower proportion of the total
throughput. There are however so many other factors which effect
time involved that on the evidence before it the Court does not
feel that the claim for loss of earnings is sustainable,
particularly in the light of the continued increase in overall
annual earnings of the workers concerned.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___4th__November,__1988. ___________________
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman