Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8974 Case Number: LCR12567 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PENN ATHLETIC PRODUCTS COMPANY (IRELAND) - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
laim by the Union on behalf of 5 fitters, 3 apprentices and 1 electrician for the payment of a 5% special increase for increased responsibility.
Recommendation:
he Court has considered the submissions made by the parties and
takes the view that the responsibilities of the men concerned as
specified in the fire evacuation procedure are not industrial
responsibilities which would warrant an additional payment and the
Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim. If the tasks required of these workers, however, put them
at greater hazard than other workers they should seek to amend the
drill accordingly.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8974 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12567
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PENN ATHLETIC PRODUCTS COMPANY (IRELAND)
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 5 fitters, 3 apprentices and 1
electrician for the payment of a 5% special increase for increased
responsibility.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 150 people in the manufacture
of high quality tennis balls. In May, 1988, the Company informed
all employees of a revised fire evacuation procedure. The new
procedure detailed the following special responsibilities for the
workers in question:-
Shift Fitter: (1) Switch off cement house extraction.
(2) Ensure cement house has been evacuated
and close fire doors.
(3) Switch off other extraction -
(a) Stamping lint collector.
(b) Felt punch lint collector.
(c) Buff and dip dust collector.
The Union claimed that as other groups in the Company are paid
allowances for special responsibilities, such as stand by drivers
call out allowances, a similar type of arrangement should be
extended to fitters for their special fire evacuation
responsibilities. The claim was rejected by the Company. As no
agreement could be reached at a local level the matter was referred
on 10th November, 1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement could be achieved at conciliation conference
held on 26th January, 1989, and the matter was referred on 3rd
February, 1989, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 6th
September, 1989, (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new duties place on the workers concerned the
responsibility for ensuring the evacuation of the workforce
in the event of a fire. No other group of workers have such
an onerous responsibility placed upon them. This
responsibility was unilaterally decided upon by the Company
and imposed on the craftsmen.
2. The workers basic pay is for the skills of their crafts.
It does not take into account the onerous responsibility of
ensuring the safety of other workers lives.
3. The Company pay special allowances to other workers for
extra responsibilities. It is normal practices to make
special payments for increased responsibility and as the
workers concerned have shown their willingness to co-operate
with the new procedures and ensure the safety of the
workforce in the event of a fire, then this practice should
be extended to them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is unreasonable that any individual or group should
claim an advantage in the form of a special payment for
responsibilities relating to fire evacuation procedures.
Craft workers responsibilities are minimal. Under the old
procedures they already had a role to play.
2. This claim cannot be justified on the basis of a
comparison with call out payments for electricians or
responsibility allowances for chargehands. The claim is of a
cost increasing nature and is therefore, precluded under the
terms of the Programme for National Recovery, the terms of
which have been implemented by the Company.
3. All workers have a responsibility to each other and the
Company, to ensure that a safe evacuation procedure is
operated in the event of a fire. Many workers have specific
roles to play in such an event and the Company does not
consider it appropriate that any group should receive an
additional payment for such responsibilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties and
takes the view that the responsibilities of the men concerned as
specified in the fire evacuation procedure are not industrial
responsibilities which would warrant an additional payment and the
Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim. If the tasks required of these workers, however, put them
at greater hazard than other workers they should seek to amend the
drill accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
21st September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.