Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88945 Case Number: AD895 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER RIANTA - and - UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Appeal by both parties, against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation concerning compensation to two workers for the use of a new paint machine.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Company offers and the Union
accepts the sum of #150 each to the workers involved in
settlement of this dispute."
On 2nd December, 1988 the Union appealed this recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969, on the basis that the sum of #150 was insufficient.
The Court heard the appeal on 12th January, 1989. At the hearing
the Company indicated that it too was appealing the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation on the grounds that no payment was
warranted.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The productivity achieved though the use of the new
machine warrants a greater amount of compensation than that
awarded by the Rights Commissioner.
2. The painting on of airfield and runway markings is
extremely important work. Using traditional methods it takes
eight painters a day to complete the centre line on the
runway. Two men can now complete this work in thirty minutes.
This level of increased productivity carries through to all
work performed with the new machine.
3. Prior to the use of the new machine, men, materials and
equipment had to be transported to the airfield in a van.
This is no longer necessary, thus saving on the use of the van
and operative.
4. The workers concerned drive the new machine, operate the
radio, gauge markings, change paint colour as required and
clean the machine after use. The fact that the machine can
quickly switch from one colour to another gives rise to saving
on time.
5. The Company is saving on the use of outside contractors
since the introduction of the new machine. In addition the
new machine is used for car park markings etc., also giving
rise to savings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Existing productivity agreements between the company and
the union provide for the "acceptance of new work practices
and systems" by the staff and the "operation of mechanical
aids and new equipment introduced by the company" (full
details supplied). The staff received lump sum payments
together with increases of 5% and 4.04% in basic pay in return
for these and other measures. The company is satisfied that
the introduction of the paint machine has already been fully
provided for and that no further payment is warranted.
2. The machine was purchased primarily in order to have
airfield markings applied in a modern and more efficient
manner. Any savings that arise from using it for other
activities, such as road or car park markings, are merely
incidental returns on the capital investment.
3. The introduction of the paint machine has no adverse
effects for any of the staff involved in this claim. In fact,
it makes their job easier.
4. Concession of this claim could have serious repercussive
effects (details supplied).
DECISION:
5. Having regard to the terms of the Company/Union Agreements,
the Court is of the opinion that the Union's claim is not
sustainable. The Court, therefore, upholds the Company's appeal
that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation be overturned. The
Court so determines.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88945 DECISION NO. AD589
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
and
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties, against a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation concerning compensation to two workers for the use
of a new paint machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. A new paint machine, used mainly for runway markings, was
introduced into service in 1988. The Union sought compensation to
two members who use the new machine, in the form of a lump sum
once off payment. The Company rejected this claim. The matter
was referred to a Rights Commissioner who held an investigation on
9th November, 1988. The Rights Commissioner issued his findings
and recommendation on 18th November, 1988. These stated as
follows:-
"Findings:
I accept that there must be an on going acceptance of
change through the introduction of new methods and
machines without compensation. There has been no loss
of earnings to the workers concerned. The Company has
a right to expect benefits from such an investment, and
in this it will be of benefit to the workers concerned.
On the other hand the workers have been fully
co-operative on the introduction of this machine, and
there may be an indirect pay-off to the Company. In
these circumstances it seems to me that there is some
merit in the dispute.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Company offers and the Union
accepts the sum of #150 each to the workers involved in
settlement of this dispute."
On 2nd December, 1988 the Union appealed this recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969, on the basis that the sum of #150 was insufficient.
The Court heard the appeal on 12th January, 1989. At the hearing
the Company indicated that it too was appealing the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation on the grounds that no payment was
warranted.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The productivity achieved though the use of the new
machine warrants a greater amount of compensation than that
awarded by the Rights Commissioner.
2. The painting on of airfield and runway markings is
extremely important work. Using traditional methods it takes
eight painters a day to complete the centre line on the
runway. Two men can now complete this work in thirty minutes.
This level of increased productivity carries through to all
work performed with the new machine.
3. Prior to the use of the new machine, men, materials and
equipment had to be transported to the airfield in a van.
This is no longer necessary, thus saving on the use of the van
and operative.
4. The workers concerned drive the new machine, operate the
radio, gauge markings, change paint colour as required and
clean the machine after use. The fact that the machine can
quickly switch from one colour to another gives rise to saving
on time.
5. The Company is saving on the use of outside contractors
since the introduction of the new machine. In addition the
new machine is used for car park markings etc., also giving
rise to savings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Existing productivity agreements between the company and
the union provide for the "acceptance of new work practices
and systems" by the staff and the "operation of mechanical
aids and new equipment introduced by the company" (full
details supplied). The staff received lump sum payments
together with increases of 5% and 4.04% in basic pay in return
for these and other measures. The company is satisfied that
the introduction of the paint machine has already been fully
provided for and that no further payment is warranted.
2. The machine was purchased primarily in order to have
airfield markings applied in a modern and more efficient
manner. Any savings that arise from using it for other
activities, such as road or car park markings, are merely
incidental returns on the capital investment.
3. The introduction of the paint machine has no adverse
effects for any of the staff involved in this claim. In fact,
it makes their job easier.
4. Concession of this claim could have serious repercussive
effects (details supplied).
DECISION:
5. Having regard to the terms of the Company/Union Agreements,
the Court is of the opinion that the Union's claim is not
sustainable. The Court, therefore, upholds the Company's appeal
that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation be overturned. The
Court so determines.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
31st January, 1989 ---------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman