Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90225 Case Number: LCR12958 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for a lump sum payment of #250 for all knitting room staff following Labour Court Recommendation (L.C.R.) No. 12717.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having carefully considered all of the arguments
made, written and oral, by the parties in their submissions does
not find grounds for concession of the Unions claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90225 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12958
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a lump sum payment of #250 for all
knitting room staff following Labour Court Recommendation (L.C.R.)
No. 12717.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 13th December, 1989 the Labour Court investigated a dispute
between the Union and the Company concerning the introduction of a
39 hour week. Under section 4 of the "Framework Agreement on
Hours of Work" the Company had sought to minimise any adverse
effects that the 39 hour week might have on costs and employment.
Following a review of operations the Company had concluded that
only the knitting department provided an opportunity of minimising
the cost impact of the implementation of the 39 hour week. The
Company proposed introducing extra machines into the knitting
department and that the extra machines would be operated by the
stand-by knitter and one of 3 shift fixers. The Union rejected
the Company's proposals. The Labour Court issued the following
recommendation (L.C.R. No. 12717) on 25th January, 1990:-
"The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Having regard to the terms of the P.N.R. it is entirely
appropriate that the Company should propose arrangements
which will alleviate the cost of the reduction in hours and
also, however marginally, increase the numbers employed. It
is also clear to the Court that the proposal to increase the
knitters allocation of machines from 66 to 69 is the only
practicable method to secure the increased output the Company
requires. In the circumstances therefore it seems reasonable
to acknowledge the contribution of the comparatively small
group of workers who are thus affected to the general benefit
of all and the Court recommends that this be done by means of
a lump sum payment of #250 to be paid to each knitter
concerned on their acceptance of the additional allocation of
machines."
Following the issue of L.C.R. No. 12717 the Union claimed that the
lump sum payment of #250 should apply to all knitting room staff
as all the workers will be affected by the extra machines. The
Company rejected the claim. The matter was referred on 15th
March, 1990 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 4th April, 1990 at which no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred on 7th May, 1990
to a full hearing of the Labour Court which was held in Tralee on
16th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In recommending a lump sum payment of #250 to knitters
under L.C.R. No. 12717 the Labour Court overlooked the other
workers involved in the operation of the three extra knitting
machines. These other workers include shift fixers, quality
mechanics, day mechanics, and yarn loaders who are affected in
the same way as the knitters. There is no justification for
making a lump sum payment of #250 to one section of the
knitting room while those other workers are denied such
payment.
2. The Company should treat all the workers in the knitting
department equally. The treatment of the knitters more
favourably than other workers who operate the same machines
and are affected in the same way could cause animosities in
the knitting department. It is fair and equitable that the
lump sum payment of #250 is extended to all the workers in the
knitting department.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. L.C.R. No. 12717 should be interpreted precisely as
written. It is clear that the Court intended the award to
apply only to the knitters who directly operate the additional
machines in the knitting department. The Court confined the
recommendation of a lump sum payment to knitters and knew that
it was excluding other workers in the knitting department.
2. The claim for the extension of the lump sum payment to all
workers in the knitting department on the basis of an increase
in the number of knitting machines does not hold up to close
examination. The workers involved in the claim are either
covered by separate agreements unrelated to the number of
knitting machines, or have experienced a reduction in the
original number of machines without corresponding manning
level adjustments. The addition of 21 machines merely
restores the previous machine numbers as at August, 1988.
3. The substantial benefit of a 39 hour week accommodated
through the installation of additional machines more than
compensates for any adjustments required in working
arrangements.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having carefully considered all of the arguments
made, written and oral, by the parties in their submissions does
not find grounds for concession of the Unions claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
24th July, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.