Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89171 Case Number: AD8930 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND;BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST512/88.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation was reasonable and should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89171 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3089
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. ST512/88.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns twelve wrapping machine operators who are
employed at the Company's premises in Tallaght. The Company have
over a number of years added four items of equipment attaching to
bakehouse wrapping machines at the plant, i.e. metal detectors,
stickering machines, automatic tapes, and coding machines. The
Unions claim that the additional equipment has resulted in
increased responsibility for the wrapping machine operators, and
is claiming compensation for same. The Company rejects the claim
on the grounds that the added items are a natural adjunct to the
wrapping machine operators' job and are part and parcel of a
modern wrapping machine set-up and is covered by clause 15 of the
workers' job description. Local discussions failed to resolve the
issue and the dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation on the 26th October, 1988. On
the 22nd November, 1988, the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"The Company appears to enjoy the advantages of a blank cheque
situation under clause 15 of the job specification. This
cover all clause is crucial to any purely clinical industrial
relations judgement on the issue. If there is additional
work, or responsibility, it is covered by the terms of this
clause. The Company has assured me by letter since the
investigation, that no loss of bonus payment has been
suffered on No. 4 and No. 6 plants since the introduction of
the metal detectors, which can automatically stop production.
I had expressed a serious concern that the application of
clause 15 should not entail any loss to the operators. In
these circumstances and having regard to the Company's claim
that the work is in fact covered by clause 15 of the Job
Specification I recommend that the claim fails on these
grounds alone."
The Unions rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and
on the 22nd February, 1989 appealed it to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing was held on the 16th March, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Despite the Company's stance the Union believes the claim
to be a reasonable one. There is no doubt that the workers
concerned have given full co-operation to the Company on the
use of the new equipment. The new equipment means extra
responsibility and attentiveness and results in higher
production. The main problem in raising such a claim as this
one is that there is no mechanism available to the workers to
effect consideration, as all wrapping machine operators are on
the top grade. If the workers were not on the top grade they
would be certain to be upgraded as a direct result of the
degree of change in respect of duties associated with the post
of wrapper. It is unfair of the Company to continue to add
new equipment, and to continue to seek co-operation and added
responsibility from the workers concerned, without some form
of reward scheme.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation contained some
detail about a cover-all clause, i.e. clause 15 of an old
agreement in respect of a job description on wrapping plants.
Clause 15 has never at any stage been accepted by the general
unions, nor indeed has the Company ever attempted to use this
clause to effect change. The Company has a clear view of the
Unions' attitude that the clause does not give the Company a
'blank cheque' situation. The Rights Commissioner felt that
it does give the Company such rights and rejected the Union's
claim on this basis. The Unions have disputed this decision
and reject the recommendation on the basis that it could have
an impact on all other sections within the Company.
3. At the time the wrapper operator jobs were graded, there
was no extra equipment on the machines. The co-operation
given by the workers concerned has been first class, and were
it not forthcoming the plant would suffer increased down time.
The Unions reiterate that clause 15 is not a catch all clause,
and does not give the Company the right to install whatever
equipment they wish without considering the operators.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The items of machinery installed by the Company are a
natural adjunct to the wrapping machine operators job and are
part and parcel of a modern wrapping machine set-up. The
activities are not more complex than the mainstream wrapping
job for which the operators justifiably hold the top grade.
There should be no issue of a claim for the stickering and
coding units which are expressly provided for in the job
description (details supplied to the Court). The metal
detectors are a standard feature of the Company's operations.
The automatic taper is normally looked after on a day to day
basis by the packing team and the wrapping machine operators
may be called on to provide back-up support. In this respect
it is important to state that the Company's case does not rely
on using clause 15 of the job description as a 'blank cheque.'
Clearly however, clause 15 means something by way of adapting
a wrapping set up to changing circumstances.
2. There is no pool of savings in which the groups of
employees might share. On the contrary on the basis of the
two obligations of customer demands and compliance with the
law, the items have cost the Company a substantial sum of
money to date. Any payment to the twelve wrapping operators
would inevitably extend to all others associated with the
plants in the bakehouse. In addition it would be difficult to
see why wrapping machine operators in the processing area of
the factory would not also seek payment. The items described
in the Unions' claim arise from two obligations which the
Company cannot ignore and at the same time stay in
business i.e. serve the customers' needs and comply with the
law. In meeting those obligations, the Company does not
believe that the adaptations to their mainstream operations
warrant additional payment to the group of wrapping machine
operators and by extension to the wider group.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation was reasonable and should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
12th April, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.