Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8965 Case Number: AD8918 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: STAR PLASTICS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (No. CW293/88) concerning the erosion of a worker's job status.
Recommendation:
"Findings
I can understand that the worker believes that he has a
grievance. However I do not consider that his job status has
been eroded in any substantial way. He retains his Grade 2
rate of pay and it is only reasonable that he rotates as do
the other workers when he is not required for grinding
duties.
Recommendations
I recommend that the Union and the worker accept that he
rotate on the other machines and that he has no claim on the
day-shift Grinding operative."
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
30th January, 1989, appealed it to the Labour Court. The Court
heard the appeal on 14th February, 1989, in Cavan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. As a result of the new rotation system in 1988, the
worker's job status has been eroded. He is now classified as
a machine operator, not a grinder as his job specification
indicates. The worker has the longest service in the Company
as a grinder.
2. The Union believes that he should be restored to his
pre-rotation position or failing that he should be given the
permanent position on the day shift by virtue of his service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker claimed loss of status as a result of the
rotation system. This is totally refuted by the Company. He
retains his grade 2 differential and gets first choice on
grinding when requested and when he is available.
2. He also claimed that he should be grinding on days. This
again is rejected by the Company. The worker appointed
grinder on days in 1982, has operated as such since 1982 and
he also has significantly longer service than the worker
here concerned.
3. The worker concerned should continue to rotate on the
machines except when required for grinding duties, in
accordance with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
DECISION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation, which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8965 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1889
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: STAR PLASTICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation (No. CW293/88) concerning the erosion of a worker's
job status.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a grinding operative.
This position attracts a 7% premium. Prior to 1982, 3 grinding
operatives were employed, 1 on each shift. In 1982, the Company
found it necessary to do most of the grinding on the day shift,
due mainly to the fact that new machines were installed with
regrinding systems attached. It was agreed that one operative
would do the grinding on the day shift and that the other 2
operatives (including the worker concerned in this dispute) would
retain their differential. Their job description was not altered
so they were still employed as Grade 2 Grinding Operatives. This
meant that they would get first priority for grinding duties and
would fill in as general operatives when there was no grinding
work to be done. As it transpired over the years, even though 1
man was employed full time on the day shift, there was still a
significant amount of grinding required on the other 2 shifts due
to increased demand. The original worker selected for the day
shift position had the longest service as a grinder. When he left
the Company his position was taken by the next in line on that
particular shift, on a service basis. The Union says that as this
did not create any significant change and as there was still
grinding work on the other 2 shifts, no objection was raised by
the worker here concerned.
3. The Union maintains that a significant change was brought
about early in 1988, by the introduction of a rotation system for
all shift operatives. Previously this worker was not rostered on
machine operative's duties and would only do grinding as a
secondary position. The Union claimed he should be restored to
his pre-rotation position or be given the permanent position on
the day shift. The Company maintained that he should rotate on
all machines on his shift except when required to do grinding
duties.
4. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 3rd December, 1988, the
Rights Commissioner issued the following findings and
recommendation:
"Findings
I can understand that the worker believes that he has a
grievance. However I do not consider that his job status has
been eroded in any substantial way. He retains his Grade 2
rate of pay and it is only reasonable that he rotates as do
the other workers when he is not required for grinding
duties.
Recommendations
I recommend that the Union and the worker accept that he
rotate on the other machines and that he has no claim on the
day-shift Grinding operative."
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
30th January, 1989, appealed it to the Labour Court. The Court
heard the appeal on 14th February, 1989, in Cavan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. As a result of the new rotation system in 1988, the
worker's job status has been eroded. He is now classified as
a machine operator, not a grinder as his job specification
indicates. The worker has the longest service in the Company
as a grinder.
2. The Union believes that he should be restored to his
pre-rotation position or failing that he should be given the
permanent position on the day shift by virtue of his service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker claimed loss of status as a result of the
rotation system. This is totally refuted by the Company. He
retains his grade 2 differential and gets first choice on
grinding when requested and when he is available.
2. He also claimed that he should be grinding on days. This
again is rejected by the Company. The worker appointed
grinder on days in 1982, has operated as such since 1982 and
he also has significantly longer service than the worker
here concerned.
3. The worker concerned should continue to rotate on the
machines except when required for grinding duties, in
accordance with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
DECISION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation, which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___6th___March,___1989. _______________________
B. O'N. / J. C. Deputy Chairman