Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88584 Case Number: AD8863 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KLINGE AND COMPANY LTD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST318/88 concerning a claim by a worker for additional pay.
Recommendation:
"It is not within the competence of the Rights Commissioner
function to recommend fundamental changes in agreed
structures That is a function of the Labour Court I would
suggest. It is a management function to decide on the
level, content and personnel for the supervisory needs of
the Company from time to time. It has exercised that right
in this case by not agreeing to the institution of a new
post. Naturally the claimant would be in a favourable
position for such post given his experience and work
performance. However he must await the Company's pleasure
in the matter. I recommend that his claim fails on this
occasion."
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
the 20th July, 1988 appealed it to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place in Tralee on the 29th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a wage increase for extra duties
which the worker is now obliged to do. The Rights
Commissioner was unable to deal with this matter since he felt
that it was outside his terms of reference. The fact is that
there were three people employed in the warehouse on a full
time basis, now there is only one person working there. The
Company has stated that there are more, but, others (names
supplied to the Court) are employed part-time in the warehouse
but spend most of their time on driving and other duties.
2. The Company has consistently stated that there are no
extra duties to be undertaken by the employee, yet it
acknowledged to the Union at a recent meeting that the
employee has been working a new system under protest. At that
meeting the Union argued that the Company was trying to make
the post a one-man operation. This was neither denied nor
confirmed by the Company. The Company has stated that it is
not introducing computerisation and yet it has issued a
warning to the worker for not doing a new duty. The employee
has not refused to do extra duty but has stated that he is
willing to undertake the new duties only after negotiations
and an increase in pay has been achieved. However, the Union
has advised the Company that its member "will continue to work
the VDU under protest, until the Court issues its finding in
this dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employee has been on the appropriate grade (Grade V)
in the grading structure which was set up following the Labour
Court recommendation in 1984. The next progression in the
grading structure would be to the position of foreman (Grade
VI) and no need exists at present for a second foreman. The
claim on the basis of extra duties has no substance. The
worker was and is not under any pressure in the absence of the
chargehand. Additionally, cleaning materials are no longer
stored in the warehouse. The only "extra" duties which were
put forward by the Union during discussion were, the sticking
of labels onto drums and the issue of protective clothing.
However, this is a basic requirement of the industry in which
the Company is involved and does not in any way constitute
extra duties.
4. 2. A driver was re-assigned to warehouse duties, as the
Company felt that one full time driver was sufficient. The
chargehand was replaced when not available, by another
employee in the stores. The employee is still only working a
normal week and very seldom does overtime and is not under any
pressure. His rate of pay at present is #195.38 per week and
this is well in line with those rates obtaining in similar
employments in industry and locally. The Company believes
that there is no justifiable basis for a claim being made in
this case. Any consideration of such a claim would distort
the whole grading structure which has been in existence for
many years, and which has already been the subject of a Labour
Court hearing and recommendation.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation which it upholds. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88584 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6388
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: KLINGE AND COMPANY LTD
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST318/88 concerning a claim by a worker for
additional pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The employee works in the warehouse and is on the senior
operator (Grade V) scale of pay. The matter of pay and a grading
structure was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in 1984.
Following the Labour Court Recommendation (in 1984) the employee
was promoted from Grade IV to Grade V in the warehouse and
received a pay increase of #7.62 per week. The worker's immediate
supervisor (since deceased) was in receipt of a chargehand rate of
pay. The Union claims that the worker has been engaged in extra
duties since 1985 and is claiming the chargehand rate on his
behalf. The Company rejected the claim on the basis that no such
position now existed and that a previous Labour Court
Recommendation had dealt with the worker's claim. In 1987 the
employee again initiated another claim for extra payment because
of the absence of the chargehand. However the Company offered no
increase. As no agreement was reached in discussions at local
level the dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation on the 10th June, 1988. On the
20th June, 1988 the Rights Commissioner issued the following
recommendation:-
"It is not within the competence of the Rights Commissioner
function to recommend fundamental changes in agreed
structures That is a function of the Labour Court I would
suggest. It is a management function to decide on the
level, content and personnel for the supervisory needs of
the Company from time to time. It has exercised that right
in this case by not agreeing to the institution of a new
post. Naturally the claimant would be in a favourable
position for such post given his experience and work
performance. However he must await the Company's pleasure
in the matter. I recommend that his claim fails on this
occasion."
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
the 20th July, 1988 appealed it to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place in Tralee on the 29th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a wage increase for extra duties
which the worker is now obliged to do. The Rights
Commissioner was unable to deal with this matter since he felt
that it was outside his terms of reference. The fact is that
there were three people employed in the warehouse on a full
time basis, now there is only one person working there. The
Company has stated that there are more, but, others (names
supplied to the Court) are employed part-time in the warehouse
but spend most of their time on driving and other duties.
2. The Company has consistently stated that there are no
extra duties to be undertaken by the employee, yet it
acknowledged to the Union at a recent meeting that the
employee has been working a new system under protest. At that
meeting the Union argued that the Company was trying to make
the post a one-man operation. This was neither denied nor
confirmed by the Company. The Company has stated that it is
not introducing computerisation and yet it has issued a
warning to the worker for not doing a new duty. The employee
has not refused to do extra duty but has stated that he is
willing to undertake the new duties only after negotiations
and an increase in pay has been achieved. However, the Union
has advised the Company that its member "will continue to work
the VDU under protest, until the Court issues its finding in
this dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employee has been on the appropriate grade (Grade V)
in the grading structure which was set up following the Labour
Court recommendation in 1984. The next progression in the
grading structure would be to the position of foreman (Grade
VI) and no need exists at present for a second foreman. The
claim on the basis of extra duties has no substance. The
worker was and is not under any pressure in the absence of the
chargehand. Additionally, cleaning materials are no longer
stored in the warehouse. The only "extra" duties which were
put forward by the Union during discussion were, the sticking
of labels onto drums and the issue of protective clothing.
However, this is a basic requirement of the industry in which
the Company is involved and does not in any way constitute
extra duties.
4. 2. A driver was re-assigned to warehouse duties, as the
Company felt that one full time driver was sufficient. The
chargehand was replaced when not available, by another
employee in the stores. The employee is still only working a
normal week and very seldom does overtime and is not under any
pressure. His rate of pay at present is #195.38 per week and
this is well in line with those rates obtaining in similar
employments in industry and locally. The Company believes
that there is no justifiable basis for a claim being made in
this case. Any consideration of such a claim would distort
the whole grading structure which has been in existence for
many years, and which has already been the subject of a Labour
Court hearing and recommendation.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation which it upholds. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
--------------------
17th October, 1988
T O'D/U.S. Deputy Chairman.