Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9148 Case Number: LCR13253 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of eight general maintenance workers for (a) staff conditions, and (b) increased premium for weekend overlap work.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties
and the additional oral submissions at the hearings, finds no
grounds on which it could justify recommending concession of the
Union claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9148 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13253
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of eight general maintenance
workers for (a) staff conditions, and (b) increased premium for
weekend overlap work.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is involved in the manufacture of ladies
hosiery, employs approximately 450 workers. In February, 1990 the
Union, on behalf of eight general maintenance workers, served a
claim on the Company for staff conditions. The Union subsequently
made a claim for increased premium for weekend overlap working.
In June, 1990, both claims were rejected by the Company and on
23rd November, 1990 the matters were referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 13th December, 1990 at which agreement could not be reached and
on 31st December, 1990 the matters were referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 21st March, 1991.
Claim (a) Staff Conditions
BACKGROUND:
3. When the Company was established in 1967 weekly staff
conditions of employment were applied to a number of positions -
clerical, craft, driver, supervisory and some mechanical
positions. In 1985 weekly staff conditions were also applied to
the post of finishing mechanic. Workers appointed to weekly staff
positions have the standard conditions of employment and
additional conditions in relation to sick pay, statutory maternity
leave pay and service holidays. The Union is claiming staff
conditions for the workers on the basis that the workers in the
maintenance/craft department have staff status and this status
should therefore be extended to the workers in the general
maintenance department who have the same departmental manager and
who work closely with the craft section. The Union also claims
that as a driver who successfully claimed relativity with the
general maintenance workers for pay purposes (L.C.R. No. 10513
refers) retains his staff status then the general maintenance
workers should also enjoy staff conditions. The Company has
rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The vast majority of workers in this Company do not enjoy
staff conditions. The Company is one of the more progressive
in this country and has a positive approach to investment and
technology. It is therefore difficult for the Union to
understand why the Company still only has a minority of
workers on "staff". The Union's claim for staff status was
further compounded by the fact that some years ago a driver
who had staff status successfully claimed wage relativity with
the general maintenance workers. The need for team work has
always been stressed by the Company and this present two-tier
system should be eliminated. A start should be made with
general maintenance due to the fact that they work side by
side with workers in the maintenance/craft department who
enjoy staff status. The Union believes that it and the
Company should be negotiating a code of practice that would
attain staff status if not in the immediate future at least
during the course of the present Programme for Economic and
Social Progress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In establishing weekly staff conditions of employment in
1967 for certain categories of staff the Company took into
account historical arrangements and those jobs in which there
was substantial responsibility/training time. Since then the
only addition to these categories was in 1985, when the
position of finishing mechanic was included in recognition of
the manner in which this position had developed. The general
maintenance section is part of a larger department which
includes the positions of craft maintenance and Company driver
which have staff conditions. The Union has argued that this
is inequitable. However, it is normal that within a
department some groups may have staff conditions and others
not. In addition, L.C.R. No. 10513 did not create a reverse
relativity between the general maintenance position and that
of Company driver in respect of staff conditions.
2. The Union has argued that some clerical positions have a
lower wage level than the general maintenance positions
although they have staff conditions. However the general
maintenance position is not higher paid than some clerical
positions when the top of scale levels are compared. The
incremental scales in clerical positions reflect the fact that
separate arrangements are traditional in administrative and
clerical positions. There would be a very substantial cost
involved in extending the number of positions carrying staff
conditions (details supplied to the Court). In addition this
claim was made and processed during the final phase of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) and is therefore
contrary to the no cost increasing claims' clause of that
programme.
Claim (b) Increased premium for weekend overlap work
BACKGROUND:
6. The Union has claimed an increase of #20 per week in respect
of weekend overlap work. This overlap working entails working one
weekend in four on security duties. The Union's claim is based on
the unsocial hours and responsibility attaching to the security
duties. The Company has rejected the Union's claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The rate of pay for general maintenance workers is #136.50
basic plus a productivity award of #18.68. This represents a
total gross wage of #155.18 for a thirty nine hour week. The
maintenance workers also work an overlap system, working one
weekend in four for which they receive an extra fourteen hours
pay.
2. Apart from the general duties, these workers also
undertake all the security duties for the factory. This is
where the productivity award comes in and the overlap system
operates. The Union, having regard to the value of the plant
at the factory, believes that the monies paid to the workers
for security duties is totally inadequate. A basic wage of a
mere #136.50 plus the #18.68 productivity award, which
includes security duties, is not reasonable for the duties and
responsibilities undertaken by these workers.
3. The Union appreciates the fact that it may be difficult
for the Company to alter the basic wage rate. However, there
are ways and means by which gross earnings could be increased,
such as functional differentials and shift allowances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. When undertaking security duties, the Company has told the
maintenance workers that it does not expect them to eject
intruders where this would involve the use of physical force.
In such circumstances their role is to create a deterrent and
to act in an alarm raising capacity.
2. The value of the security duty is reflected in the normal
weekly wage. The overlap premium reflects the unsocial aspect
of working on Saturday and Sunday in lieu of two weekdays.
The weekend premium paid to craft workers who also work on
overlap is calculated on the same basis. There has been no
change in the unsociable nature of weekend working which would
justify an increase in the overlap premium.
3. The claim, which was lodged and processed during the final
phase of the P.N.R. is contrary to the 'no cost increasing
claims' clause of that programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties
and the additional oral submissions at the hearings, finds no
grounds on which it could justify recommending concession of the
Union claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
12th April, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.