Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89253 Case Number: LCR12571 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ARLINGTON LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union that a worker be allowed to retain his current rate of pay.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89253 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12571
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: ARLINGTON LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that a worker be allowed to retain his
current rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company concerned in this dispute employs approximately
500 workers in the manufacture of costume jewellery and soap
products. The worker concerned in the dispute has been employed
by the Company since 22nd August, 1979, and is currently a full
time assembler (general operative) and a stand-by driver. In
regard to stand-by the Company/Union agreement provides as
follows:
"Upon promotion to a stand by position the following procedure
shall be followed:
A stand by who operates in his/her stand by capacity for 4
weeks consecutively shall be automatically deemed a temporary
in that position. When the temporary period of work ceases,
the respective supervisor/manager will inform the Personnel
Department who will in turn amend the employees file to
reflect his/her original position, in addition to retaining
the employee as stand-by in the position he/she has ceased to
operate in.
Where an employee is employed in a temporary position for a
period of 21 non-consecutive months within a 24th month
period, he/she will be entitled to the permanent rate for
that respective position.
Initially the position will be reviewed for permanency after
the initial 12 month period and thereafter at six monthly
intervals until the 24 month period is reached.
The situation will be subject to further review where the
above conditions are not realised."
The Company paid the worker an increase in wages from 12th
September, 1988 to 3rd February, 1989. They claim that they based
the increase on the agreement but used the wrong period for its
calculation. They discovered their mistake in October, 1988 but
agreed to pay him the higher rate to February, 1989 as a form of
redress for the disappointment suffered by him.
The Union agree that the worker was not entitled to the increase
under the agreement. The Union claim that it is Company policy to
increase the wages of individuals based on their performance. The
worker queried the increase when he first got it, and the wages
section and the Personnel Section confirmed that it was correct.
The Union claim that the worker should retain the higher rate
because it belives that it was awarded for performance.
On 7th April, 1989 the Union referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Union agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court. A
Court hearing took place in Portlaoise on 29th August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management of the Company insist on its right to adjust
upwards the wages of individual workers, and the Union does
not object to this perogative. What is clearly unjust is the
manner in which the Company arbitrarily reduced the wages of
the worker here concerned. It was given adequate notice to
enable it to correct any error in September of 1988. The
Union contends that its failure to do so reflected the fact
that the worker's wages had been raised on an individual
basis. The Union believes that the adjustment downwards only
took place when the implications for other employees were
realised.
2. The Union agrees that the worker had not accumulated
sufficient hours for the higher rate under the agreed
procedures. He was however, given the clear impression that
his rate had been adjusted upwards on an individual merit
basis. It was only adjusted downwards during a period when
the worker was in hospital. The Union contends that the
worker has been shabbily treated in this instance, and that
the higher rate should be restored to him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not believe that it has a case to answer.
A genuine clerical error was made, which is regretted. The
situation was made clear to the worker and, as a means of
making amends, the Company paid the higher rate from September
to February. The Company believes that this is adequate
redress for the disappointment suffered by the worker. The
worker will have further opportunities to gain experience in
the higher level stand-by position and thereby progress
towards the higher rate as per the Company/Union Agreement
(details supplied to the Court). Any deviation from agreed
procedures could have serious consequences for the Company, as
there are a number of workers with identical hours worked as
the employee in question. The Court is asked to uphold the
Company's position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
22nd September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.