Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89261 Case Number: LCR12588 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CELMAC LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a fitters helper for the restoration of a twice yearly bonus payment.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the ambiguity of the settlement terms of the
October, 1988, agreement, the Court recommends that the twice
yearly bonus be paid to the worker concerned in respect of last
Christmas, this years annual leave and next Christmas, in lieu of
notice of termination of this payment.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89261 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12588
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CELMAC LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a fitters helper for the
restoration of a twice yearly bonus payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the course of the 1988 wage negotiations, the Union made a
claim on behalf of the fitters helper that he should receive the
quarterly and weekly bonus enjoyed by other employees in the
maintenance department. Following discussions the Company
conceded the Union's claim and confirmed the agreement in writing.
On 1st October, 1988, the helper received his first quarterly and
weekly bonuses. Prior to this the helper had been in receipt of a
twice yearly bonus of one weeks' pay. This bonus was paid at
Christmas and the August shut-down. At Christmas, 1988, the bonus
was not paid to the fitters helper. In January, 1989, the Union
lodged a claim for the restoration of the twice yearly bonus
payment. The Company responded that the October, 1988 wage
agreement replaced this bonus with the new weekly and quarterly
production bonus, at substantial advantage to the fitters helper.
As agreement could not be reached locally the matter was referred
on 13th February, 1989, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement could be achieved at a conciliation
conference held on 6th April, 1989, and on 12th April, 1989, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 14th
September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The fitters helper has enjoyed the twice yearly bonus
since he took up his position in the maintenance department
seven years ago. His standard of living and financial
commitments have been based on the continued receipt of the
bonus.
2. At no time during the negotiations on the October, 1988,
wage agreement did the Company indicate the worker's bonus
would be terminated. The Company conceded special
arrangements for the worker on the grounds that an anomalous
situation existed between his rate and his colleagues' rate.
The Company during local discussions in early 1989, accepted
that it was not the intention to discontinue the bonus when
they conceded the special increases during the October, 1988,
wage agreement. The decision to terminate the bonus was taken
in December, 1988, when payment became due.
3. The Company's justification for this decision was the
following clause of the wage agreement:-
"Day workers not on any other bonus will receive one weeks
pay bonus at Christmas and one weeks pay bonus at August
holidays,...."
However, examination of the current and previous wage
agreements show that where negotiations provided for the
replacement of one payment for another it was clearly stated
in the agreement and that notwithstanding the above clause,
the worker continued to receive the twice yearly bonus.
4. The Union is prepared to enter into discussions on the
future payment of this bonus provided the bonus is restored
until agreement is reached. Unilateral action by the Company
is unacceptable as a feature of the Union's relationship with
the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In October, 1988, the Company agreed to concede to the
helper, the granting of the weekly and quarterly bonus in lieu
of his twice yearly bonus. This represented a substantial
increase in his wages. He received an increase of #27.63 per
week or 17.22% above his existing bonus, which was the
equivalent of #5.47 per week, and an overall increase of
#32.03 realising a 19.9% total incentive on the 1988 wage
agreement. The other maintenance staff received an increase
of 4.5%.
2. There is no situation in the Company where a worker
receives both the twice yearly and the weekly and quarterly
production bonus as claimed by the Union in this case.
Concession of the claim would have serious knock-on effects
(details supplied to the Court).
3. There is absolutely no ambiguity that the October, 1988,
agreement clearly replaced the twice yearly bonus for the
weekly and quarterly production bonus. The Union confirmed
acceptance of the terms of the October, 1988, agreement
outlined by the Company on 12th October, 1988 (details
supplied to the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the ambiguity of the settlement terms of the
October, 1988, agreement, the Court recommends that the twice
yearly bonus be paid to the worker concerned in respect of last
Christmas, this years annual leave and next Christmas, in lieu of
notice of termination of this payment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
6th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.