Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88812 Case Number: AD892 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CURRAGH TINTAWN CARPETS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 175/88 concerning the payment of a "dirty money" annual allowance.
Recommendation:
4. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not accept that the cleaning operation involved in
this claim constitutes an operation which would normally be
eligible for the payment of "dirty money." The Court accordingly
upholds the Company's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88812 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD289
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CURRAGH TINTAWN CARPETS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 175/88 concerning the payment of a "dirty
money" annual allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was originally part of the Irish Ropes Group, when
approximately one year ago the carpet division was sold to its
present owners Curragh Tintawn Carpets Limited. The employees
within the carpet division transferred to the new Company, and the
wages and conditions obtaining in the new Company were the same as
those in Irish Ropes. Prior to the transfer, the loom operatives
had initiated a claim for the application of a #90 per annum
"dirty money" allowance, and this claim continued after the
setting up of Curragh Tintawn Carpets Limited. The cleaning job
takes place once a week for three hours on a Friday afternoon, and
is an essential duty for the proper functioning of the looms. The
Company rejected the claim and as no agreement could be reached in
discussions at local level the dispute was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation on the 23rd
September, 1988. On the 28th September, 1988 the Rights
Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"There is a tradition of paying dirty money from the Irish
Ropes days. This has been imported into the present Company
in the case of the carpet backers. The use of a sticky
solvent is an intrinsic part of their work yet they are paid
an allowance for its use. The job of cleaning the looms is
an integral part of the work of a loom operative. It is a
dirty and tedious job in a cramped space. The provision of
hooded overalls is testimony to this fact.
The incidence is only once a week. In these circumstances, I
recommend that the claimants receive #60 per annum in
recognition of the dirty conditions they occasionally work in
and in consideration of their continuing co-operation in this
exercise. They should also co-operate with any new
extraction unit procedure which the Company may introduce in
the future."
The Company rejected the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, and
on the 19th October, 1988 appealed it to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing took place on the 19th December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company was a constituent one within the Irish Ropes
Group until approximately one year ago. At that time a
buy-out of the carpet division was agreed with the management
(of Irish Ropes) which included both assets and labour. The
employees who were transferred were safeguarded by the
employees rights on transfer regulation thus protecting their
terms and conditions as former Irish Ropes employees.
2. The loom operatives had initiated a claim for the
application of the #90 per annum dirty money allowance that
applied both within the rope and twine and carpet divisions of
Irish Ropes, and continued with their claim on transfer. As
the Company would not concede the claim both parties agreed to
refer the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation.
The Rights Commissioner visited the plant so that he could
observe at first hand the cleaning process in action to assist
him at the subsequent hearing and in his final deliberation.
The Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation in favour of
the loom operatives.
3. The cleaning process of itself is an integral part of the
loom operators' job and, as in other cleaning process
operations, should attract the "dirty money" allowance of #90
per annum. The Rights Commissioner verified this fact. As
the principle of such an allowance already applied within the
Company and as the employees fulfilled the requirements for
such an allowance it should therefore be paid. The Rights
Commissioner in his recommendation, both from direct
observation and investigation held this to be a fact, however
in his conclusion he recommended a differential payment of #60
per annum. For the Court's information Irish Ropes pay #90
per annum to its loom operators.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was originally part of Irish Ropes but due
to its poor trading performance, the management of Irish Ropes
were not prepared to finance its operation and sold it to its
present owners. Since its separation management has made a
very determined effort to turn the Company into a viable
operation and is making steady progress in this objective. It
is very important that the Company adopt a work ethic which is
of the present and adopt practices and procedures which will
take it into the 1990s and beyond. Their tradition starts
from the date of separation and not before, otherwise the
Company will fall back to the ways of its former ownership and
will not survive. The Company accepts that at the time of
separation it was necessary to accept wages and conditions
that applied at the time but from there onwards management and
workers accepted that they would have to go it alone.
2. Management was aware at the point of separation that
"dirty money" as a concept was paid to the backing operators
but was also aware that the issue of a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation guaranteed that there would be no consequential
claims. The claim by the loom operators is a direct violation
of that undertaking and the position is worsened by the fact
that further sections of the labour force have submitted
claims for dirty money payments. It is the Company's view
that dirty money payments are only made in exceptional
circumstances and consequently could only apply to rare
situations outside the norm for the job. The loom operators
as part of their job are required to keep their machine clean
and must on occasions brush away the dust which accumulates.
Although they wear protective clothing the operation itself
does not fall into the category of being exceptional. There
are many occupations where protective clothing is provided but
would not merit dirty money payment, e.g. welders, platers,
sprayers, painters, printers to name a few. Neither is the
performance of this function producing obnoxious smells or is
socially unacceptable to handle. As an example of what is
considered coming within the concept of "dirty money" the
following extract from the Heating and Ventilating Agreement,
and also a comprehensive E.S.B. list of jobs which are
considered abnormal is attached (details of these lists
supplied to the Court).
3. Management believes that the Rights Commissioner erred
under a number of headings:
(a) A tradition existed. This is not so as the Company has
had only a short existence and previous agreement
prevented following on claims.
(b) The work of the operators includes an ongoing cleaning
operation at intervals of time and pay rates embrace this
function of the job.
(c) The payment of dirty money is understood to be in respect
of exceptional circumstances and whilst this job requires
protective clothing, this alone does not constitute
"dirty money" conditions.
DECISION:
4. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not accept that the cleaning operation involved in
this claim constitutes an operation which would normally be
eligible for the payment of "dirty money." The Court accordingly
upholds the Company's appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_______________________
23rd January, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.