Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88952 Case Number: LCR12342 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TELEMECANIQUE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Interpretation of an agreement concerning stand-in arrangements involving line leaders.
Recommendation:
7. The Court finds that there is a genuine misunderstanding about
what was agreed in relation to the payment of the stand-in
allowance.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the payment be
made for the two instances in dispute. However, the parties
should meet to clarify the agreement in such a way which allows
the appointment of substitute supervisors in appropriate and
agreed circumstances.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88952 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12342
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TELEMECANIQUE (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of an agreement concerning stand-in
arrangements involving line leaders.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1985 the Company introduced a new grade into the Company,
that of line leader. The new grade is an intermediary one between
assembly worker and supervisor. There are currently six
established line leaders and one temporary. Their present basic
rate of pay is #174.84 per week. The basic rate of pay of
supervisors is approximately #300 per week. In July, 1986, the
workers selected to be line leaders received an increase in pay of
5%. This made a differential of 37% over the general operatives
rate. It was also stated in writing in internal correspondence
(copy supplied to the Court) dated 29th July, 1986, that a payment
of #10 per week would apply to the line leaders in the absence of
supervisors due to illness or holidays. Line leaders receive a
bonus which averages 12% of basic pay and 20% shift allowance
where appropriate.
3. In April, 1988 the Union on behalf of the line leaders sought
an increase in basic pay equal to half the differential with
supervisors. Management was not prepared to increase basic pay
but offered to increase the "stand-in" payment from #10 for a full
week to #5 per day of absence. The Union sought payment of a
weekly allowance plus an increased rate of payment per day of
absence. The Union also sought a minimum guaranteed frequency of
payment of sixty days per annum. In July, 1988, following further
discussions, agreement was reached on a payment of #8 per day of
absence. Management guaranteed a minimum of sixteen days per
annum when this payment would apply (i.e. annual holidays).
4. In September, 1988 a supervisor went on maternity leave. A
worker from the clerical area (with previous supervisory
experience) took over the absent supervisor's function. The line
leader working on the particular line was not allowed to stand-in
and was not paid the stand-in allowance of #8 per day. A second
similar situation arose when another supervisor subsequently went
on maternity leave. The Union contended that the non appointment
of line leaders to replace supervisors on maternity leave was in
breach of the agreement entered into. It contended that it was
understood by both parties during the course of negotiations that
the stand-in arrangement would apply in cases of maternity leave.
The Company denied that this was the case, contending that it had
made no such commitment. The matter was referred, on 2nd
November, 1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
A conciliation conference took place on 1st December, 1988 at
which no agreement was reached. The matter was then referred to a
full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 26th
January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The payment of #8 per day stand-in allowance was
reluctantly accepted by the line leaders on the basis that
they could expect to get it on a certain number of occasions
per year. It was understood that it would be payable during a
supervisors' absences due to holidays, sickness, jury service
and maternity leave. Management is aware that this was the
basis on which the #8 payment was accepted and, in fact,
management in the course of the negotiations, referred
specifically to maternity leave.
2. The Company's action is in clear breach of the agreement
entered into and, therefore of good, industrial relations
practice. The Company's action is not justified by the fact
that maternity leave is not referred to in writing as an
occasion warranting the stand-in payment.
3. The Union is not interfering in management's "right to
manage". In this instance management has entered into a
voluntary agreement which must be adhered to.
4. Taken to its logical conclusion, management's position
could mean that it would also refuse stand-in payments in
cases of absence due to sick leave, or jury service. While
management has referred to difficulties in relation to "longer
term" absences, there has been an instance of a line leader
receiving the stand-in allowance continuously for six months.
In addition, the absence of a supervisors has been covered by
line leaders in the past, including an absence for 16 weeks
due to maternity related reasons.
5. The clerical workers who replaced the absent supervisors
on maternity leave were not replaced in their own jobs. This
is a cost cutting exercise by the Company.
6. Management has referred to an instance in the past when
a supervisor replaced another absent supervisor. This was
because the replacement supervisor was, at that time, "spare"
to requirements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Management rejects the contention that it has broken any
agreement with the Union. At no time, despite the fact that
maternity leave was referred to, did management give any
undertaking that the stand-in payment to line leaders would
apply during their supervisors' absence on maternity leave.
The internal memo, dated 29th July, 1986, clearly stated that
the the #10 weekly payment for stand-in would apply to line
leaders in the absence of a supervisor due to illness or
holidays. The Company guaranteed a minimum stand-in payment
of sixteen days i.e. annual holidays.
2. Management considers that, in the absences in question,
full supervisory authority is required to carry out the job.
The line leaders do not have this authority as their function
is completely production oriented. The job specification for
the post of line leader states that the line leader "assists
the supervisor" and that "there is no responsibility for
personnel in the grade" (Full details supplied).
3. On two occasions in the past management has relied on
senior employees who had direct supervisory experience to fill
in for long term supervisory absence. The two employees
appointed in these most recent instances both have supervisory
experience.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court finds that there is a genuine misunderstanding about
what was agreed in relation to the payment of the stand-in
allowance.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the payment be
made for the two instances in dispute. However, the parties
should meet to clarify the agreement in such a way which allows
the appointment of substitute supervisors in appropriate and
agreed circumstances.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald for
-----------------------
7th April, 1989 John M Horgan
A.K./U.S. Chairman