Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90453 Case Number: AD9057 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GARDEUR (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST 253/90 concerning the removal of a temporary 10% premium for 5 pressers.
Recommendation:
9. The Court having heard the submissions of the parties is of
the view that the 10% allowance was temporary to allow employees
"get up to speed" after the re-organisation. It would be
inappropriate to allow its continuation on the grounds set out in
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation. The Court therefore
upholds the Company's appeal.
The Court further recommends that employees retain any payments
made to date.
In order to finally resolve the dispute the employees should work
the refused values with the parties meeting immediately to agree
the factors making up this value and if it is higher than the 5%
variation then the employees should be paid the shortfall
retrospective to the date of the re-organisation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90453 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5790
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: GARDEUR (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation ST 253/90 concerning the removal of a temporary 10%
premium for 5 pressers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 225 people at its factory on
the Baldoyle Industrial Estate. It is engaged in the manufacture
of high quality ladies trousers for the European Market. The
Company's parent plant is located in Germany.
3. Prior to December, 1989 the five workers here concerned were
located together in one section within the factory. Their task
was to underpress garments which came off 3 different production
lines. The garments were inside out when brought from the
production lines to the finishing section where they were pressed
and turned right side out. In December, 1989 the workers were
placed on the production lines as the Company considered that
there would be less damage to garments by having the pressers work
direct from the production lines rather than from the finishing
section.
4. Under the Company bonus scheme most garments had a value of
1.60 minutes for the underpressing operation. After the move the
workers sought to have their minutes increased from 1.60 on the
basis that the underpressing operation now took a longer time.
The Company investigated the claim and found that the reorganised
method of operation had no extra time involved. Under an existing
agreement the Union has the right to have standard times
investigated and its industrial engineer carried out a study on
behalf of the workers in February, 1990 (details supplied to the
Court). The Company did not agree with some of the industrial
engineer's findings.
5. Prior to the issue of the industrial engineer's report the
Company decided to put a 10% temporary premium in place which is
common within the Company. The temporary premium is used to
cushion employees earnings until they become competent in
producing a garment in the time allocated for producing it. The
temporary premium was introduced in February, 1990 and withdrawn
in July, 1990 as, in the Company's view, the workers had reached
the required target which would enable them to achieve maximum
bonus.
6. Following discussions at local level the issue was referred to
a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation dated 31st
July, 1990 subsequent to an investigation held on 25th July,
1990:-
"An ongoing year round allowance of 10% cannot be allowed
to stand as it would create a dangerous precedent which
could damage viability if it was claimed by other grades.
The Company was remiss in not spelling out precisely what
the conditions attaching were in terms of duration etc.
There is an anomaly in relation to summertime working
where excessive heat is generated combined with heavier
types garments which are made at this time of year.
Accordingly, I recommend that the allowance would stand
from the beginning of the third week in May to the end of
the second week in September each year until new work
standards are "agreed" which would take reasonable
account of the factors."
The Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 22nd October, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The premium of 10% is temporary in nature. It is used in
order to cushion wages against any readjustment in production
or product. If the Company were to concede the premium as
permanent it would effectively give the workers here concerned
a 10% pay increase. As there are 40/50 workers in receipt of
the premium at any given time they might claim it as a
permanent feature of their pay, a position which the Company
would not be able to sustain.
2. The Company did not unilaterally withdraw the 10% premium.
It is normal accepted practice that once employees show they
are capable of reaching their standard, then the temporary
premium is withdrawn. In the 6 weeks prior to the Company
withdrawing the temporary premium, each of the claimants
consistently demonstrated that they were well capable of
achieving their target (details supplied to the Court).
3. There is no validity in the argument that the temporary
premium should stay in place because of warmer weather and
bulkier materials. Indeed, the work study was carried out in
February when the weather was not warm and summer clothing was
being produced. The weather never formed part of the Union's
industrial engineer's investigation. In addition there is
very little difference in the weights of winter and summer
garments produced by the Company. If the Court were to
concede that some premium should be put in place for warmer
weather/bulky items, (even if this was the case) then the
repercussions for the clothing industry as a whole would be
untenable.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Prior to the re-organisation there were six people
employed in the one area with one person employed solely to
collect and distribute the work for the other five. Now that
they are working on different lines they have to fetch their
own work which has slowed down their output and as a
consequence adversely affected their earnings.
2. The job is very physical and very hard (details supplied
to the Court). In addition the workers are limited to one set
of styles where heretofore they were dealing with a variety of
styles. This has also adversely affected output. The payment
of allowances is a fact of life in the clothing industry
generally depending on the standards set. There is a dispute
between the Company and the Union as regards these standards
and until this dispute is resolved the allowance should have
remained in place and not have been unilaterally withdrawn.
DECISION:
9. The Court having heard the submissions of the parties is of
the view that the 10% allowance was temporary to allow employees
"get up to speed" after the re-organisation. It would be
inappropriate to allow its continuation on the grounds set out in
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation. The Court therefore
upholds the Company's appeal.
The Court further recommends that employees retain any payments
made to date.
In order to finally resolve the dispute the employees should work
the refused values with the parties meeting immediately to agree
the factors making up this value and if it is higher than the 5%
variation then the employees should be paid the shortfall
retrospective to the date of the re-organisation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,