Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89331 Case Number: LCR12507 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim on behalf of 29 mechanical craftsmen for compensation of a once off payment of #2,600 arising from a revision of the supervisory structure.
Recommendation:
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties the Court
is satisfied that the payment which was the subject of the claim
related directly to the elimination of the supervisory grade
within the group concerned. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89331 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12507
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 29 mechanical craftsmen for compensation of
a once off payment of #2,600 arising from a revision of the
supervisory structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of its ongoing reorganisation programme the Company
restructured the management structure in the Instrument/Electrical
Sections of its Arklow factory. Prior to 1988 the management
structure was as follows:
One Superintendent
One Electrical Foreman
One Instrument Foreman.
3. Rationalisation resulted in the three people leaving on
redundancy, and an electrical engineer being appointed in charge
of both sections. The foreman level of management was removed in
both sections. As a result it was agreed to pay a once off lump
sum of #2,600 to each electrician and junior technician in the
instrument section, and a sum of #2,200 to four senior technicians
in the instrument section.
4. The Unions representing the mechanical craftsmen in the
Fitting Department lodged a claim for a similar payment to be made
to the workers concerned in respect of changes made in the Fitting
Department. The Company claims that the foreman level of
management was not removed in the Department and rejected the
claim. The issue was then referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 16th November, 1988. A conciliation
conference was held on the 1st February, 1989. As no agreement
was possible both parties subsequently consented to a referral to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Arklow on the 18th July, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Management have always treated both Departments the
same. The crafts people in the Instrument/Electrical Sections
received the lump sum payment for their goodwill and
co-operated with Management during the recent reorganisation
of their Department (details supplied to the Court).
2. As a result of the organisational changes in the Fitting
Department the workers concerned now have increased
responsibility. In addition their promotional outlets have
diminished. Accordingly the fitters should be treated no less
favourably than their counterparts.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In applying its practice of once-off compensation payments
Management do not extend the compensation to other groups or
individuals unless they are similarly affected by the
rationalisation initiative that justified initial payment.
2. On a previous occasion the mechanical craftsmen were
compensated when their numbers on shift working were reduced
from 3 to 1 craftsman per shift. Because no such reduction
took place with the electricians the compensation paid to the
mechanical craftsmen was not claimed or paid to the
Electricians. There are many more examples of compensation
payments being confined to the group affected.
3. The Company policy on compensation payments has been
applied consistently and is well known to all groups in the
Company. Because the change, made in the management structure
of the Instrument and Electrical Sections, did not apply in
the Mechanical Section the Company is satisfied that the claim
made by the mechanical craftsmen is not justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties the Court
is satisfied that the payment which was the subject of the claim
related directly to the elimination of the supervisory grade
within the group concerned. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
9th August, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.