Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89410 Case Number: LCR12500 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WESSEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim concerning benefits applicable to a production controller.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that there is no valid basis for the claim.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89410 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12500
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WESSEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim concerning benefits applicable to a production
controller.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
1977 as a general operative. In 1983 he was appointed to the
position of foreman and worked on a shift arrangement. In
October, 1988 the worker informed the Plant Manager that he would
like to be taken off shift work. Subsequently the worker was
appointed to the position of production controller with effect
from 16th January, 1989 at a salary of #13,780. The worker had
previously been earning a basic rate of #13,780 plus shift premium
of 20% plus overtime. After starting in this position, the worker
and subsequently the Union requested that the worker receive
additional benefits and payments which a worker who previously had
responsibility for production control had received. The Union's
claim is for #20 extra per week on basic pay, one extra week's
annual leave, petrol money and car tax and insurance. The
Company's position is that the worker's post is a new one arising
out of expansion and re-organisation and that the worker does not
perform the same functions as the other worker whom the Union
regards as the previous holder of the job.
3. No agreement could be reached at local level and on 11th
April, 1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 26th May,
1989 at which no progress was made and on 6th June, 1989, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 20th July,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was only after the worker concerned took up the post
that he became aware that the worker who previously had
responsibility for production control had enjoyed better
conditions. The previous incumbent had been responsible for
production planning and control and the worker concerned is
now responsible for production control. Before the worker
took up his new position the Plant Manager drew up a document
setting out the job requirements and structure (details
supplied to the Court). More than 75% of his functions were
previously carried out by the other worker.
2. The job of the worker concerned is a highly responsible
one and he should not be treated less favourably than others
who have carried out the same job. It is of such importance
to the running of the plant that it cannot be left unfilled.
This importance is demonstrated by the fact that when the
worker took annual leave in June he was replaced from outside
the Company. Management's attitude to the worker is difficult
to understand, considering that he has been employed for so
long in a supervisory capacity and that at the present time he
is setting up production controls which will have direct
benefits to the Company's financial position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker concerned requested that he be taken off shift
work and no pressure was put on him to take up the position of
production controller. The position is a new one created in
January, 1989, which arose out of considerable Company
expansion and there was no previous incumbent. It is alleged
that a previous incumbent enjoyed extra benefits. However,
there is no comparison between the duties performed by the
previous worker prior to the worker's concerned appointment or
since. The production controller post of the worker concerned
is basically a clerical job whereas the previous worker's
current position and function are critical to the Company's
development and success (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company has moved into profit during the period 1986
to 1989. Prior to 1986 certain staff employees were in
receipt of petrol and insurance. However, a policy decision
was made in 1986 to stop these payments to any subsequent
workers. The worker concerned accepted the position in full
knowledge of the terms and conditions involved. He approached
the Company and terms were agreed well in excess of what the
Company intended to pay. The following week he claimed
additional payments without any basis for such a claim. The
claim is precluded under the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that there is no valid basis for the claim.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___8th__August,__1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman