Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88977 Case Number: AD8910 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: C B PACKAGING LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Appeal by the parties against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation concerning retrospective payment to a worker of a machine operator's differential.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, in light of the submissions made by the parties is
of the view that the Rights Commissioner erred in his
recommendation insofar as it would undermine the Company's formal
training programme. For this reason the Court is of the opinion
that the Company's offer to implement the Machine Operator's rate
from June, 1987 should be accepted.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88977 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1089
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: C B PACKAGING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the parties against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation concerning retrospective payment to a worker of a
machine operator's differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures paper sacks for the construction and
agricultural industries at its Clondalkin premises. The worker
was appointed as a stand-by machine operator and following a
training period of six to eight weeks he was paid a split hourly
rate amounting to 50% of the machine operator's differential.
This amounts to #157.55 per week compared to the machine operators
rate of #161.47, a differential of #3.92 per week. In 1984 the
worker operated as a machine operator for a short period when the
Company decided to go from two shift to three shift operation.
Since 1984, the worker has operated as machine operator on
occasions due to overtime, sick leave requirements etc. and has
been paid the full machine operator's rate at these times. In
September, 1988 the Company decided to pay the worker the full
machine operator's rate on an ongoing basis due to his experience
and seasonal conditions which might require him to undertake the
machine operator's job on shift. The Union has claimed that the
worker was entitled to the full machine operator's rate as and
from 25th June, 1984 since in the intervening period he has at
times occupied the position of machine operator. This was
rejected by the Company, however at local level meetings the
Company offered to pay the full machine operator's rate from June,
1987. This was rejected by the Union and the offer was withdrawn.
The matter was subsequently referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 28th October, 1988 and issued the
following recommendation -
"Having considered the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
believe that equity would reside in the Company advancing its
offer from June, 1987 to June, 1986. My reason for so doing
is that the question of additional experience having been
gained by the worker in 1986 just does not arise since. He
at no time during 1986 was required to act as machine
operator."
(The worker was referred to by name in the recommendation.).
On 21st December, 1988 the Union appealed the recommendation and
on the 9th January, 1989 the Company appealed the recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 25th January,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In June, 1984 the Company increased production and went
from a two shift to a three shift operation and instructed the
worker to take up the machine operator position at the full
rate on the third shift. It is obvious therefore that
management considered the worker fully qualified and able to
carry out this job. When three shift working ceased, the
worker reverted to stand-by operator at that rate. However,
the custom and practice in the Company has always been that a
worker retains the differential even if moved to a lower paid
position. In this worker's case this procedure was changed
without consultation or agreement.
2. The Company had no complaints about the worker's ability
to do the job of machine operator and used him on shift to
assist in increasing productivity, when required. The Company
has treated the worker very unfairly and he should not be
treated any differently from other workers who in the past
were similarly moved from positions but retained their rate.
The worker had the required experience in 1984 and should be
paid the full rate with effect from June, 1984.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker acted as a machine operator for only short
periods of time between 1984 and 1988 and was paid the full
rate at these times (details supplied to the Court). When a
stand-by machine operator stands in for the regular machine
operator the production programme is arranged so that the work
carried out is in line with the worker's skills and
experience. The basis of the Union's claim would mean that a
worker who acted as a machine operator for any length of time
no matter how short would retain the full machine operator's
rate. No account would be taken of the skill or experience
requirements of the Company. The claim that this worker is
entitled to the full machine operator's rate is unwarranted
and entirely inconsistent with established procedures which
have been in operation for over fifteen years.
2. The Company must be satisfied that a worker has the
required skill and experience before applying the full machine
operator's rate. The Company's offer to apply the full rate
to this worker with effect from June, 1987 was based on an
assessment of the skills and experience as a machine operator
acquired by the worker at that time. The Company is of the
opinion that the Rights Commissioner overlooked this fact in
recommending that the Company advance its offer from June,
1987 to June, 1986. The Company's position should be upheld.
DECISION:
5. The Court, in light of the submissions made by the parties is
of the view that the Rights Commissioner erred in his
recommendation insofar as it would undermine the Company's formal
training programme. For this reason the Court is of the opinion
that the Company's offer to implement the Machine Operator's rate
from June, 1987 should be accepted.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
9th February, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.