Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91220 Case Number: AD9162 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ERICTRON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W. 122/91.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court does not
consider any alteration of the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is warranted. The Court therefore decides that the
Recommendation should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91220 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6291
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ERICTRON LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. C.W. 122/91.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns six workers employed in the Automatic
Insertion Department (A.I.). The problem arises over the
implementation of a wages/grading agreement recently concluded.
Under the old system these workers were paid on an incentive based
scale (Pay Scale K). On this scale their wages could range from a
minimum of #159.45 to a maximum of #210.53. Under the new
agreement the pay rates of grades 1 and 3 remained unchanged
whilst the pay rate of those in grade 2 was changed to a new fixed
rate of #189 equal to 110% of the old incentive based scale.
Those functions within grade 2 which had a higher rate of pay than
the #189 rate would remain within grade 2 but would have their pay
red circled on the average of their earnings. The worker's in
question maintain that they were informed by the Company that they
would be red-circled at 109% or #205. However, they have since
been told that this figure was incorrect and that they would be
getting 90% or #197. The Union claims that the workers' concerned
voted for the new wages agreement on the basis of receiving 109%
and that it was not now open to the Company to say an error had
been made. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 6th April, 1991, the Rights
Commissioner recommended as follows:
"I recommend that the Union accepts that the Company placed
the workers on the correct rate of pay."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the Union
who appealed it on 23rd April, 1991, to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 18th June, 1991, in Athlone.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company informed the workers concerned that they would
be paid at 109% equating to #205. The Company cannot
subsequently say a mistake was made. The workers voted in
favour of the agreement on the basis of getting 109%.
2. One worker received 100% or #202 while she was training
for the job. Now, according to the Company, she will be paid
less after being fully trained. The workers concerned have
always been loyal and cooperative. Frequently they performed
duties outside their job descriptions, for which they were
paid 100%. Now they will be paid only 90%. Certain benefits
will also be reduced from 100% to 90% e.g. the Christmas
voucher.
3. The Company operated the section on the basis of estimated
norm times which in the workers' view were too tight. They
asked the Company to review them on several occasions. More
realistic norm times would have brought about a higher average
than 90%.
4. Concession of the claim does not imply a breach of the new
agreement or constitute a basis for any other individual or
group to seek a 'knock-on' benefit.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreed method of calculating average earnings is to
base it on earnings over a 13 week period. Using this method
the actual average earnings of the workers concerned is #197
which equates to 90% performance on the old pay scale. The 6
workers concerned are being paid in accordance with the
agreement.
2. On the day the Union was balloting the workers on the new
agreement, it sought information regarding the average
performance of the A.1. workers from the Company. The Union
was referred to the Payroll Department where a clerk, upon a
quick calculation, compiled an average figure for the group of
109%. The clerk pointed out that such a figure would normally
require up to 2 days to calculate and that the figure of 109%
included hours which would not usually be included in
calculating averages. The 109% figure was intended to be used
as a "ball park" figure by the Union.
3. At all stages during negotiations on the agreement it was
agreed that the Company would pay the workers in question
"their last 13 weeks average." The Company has honoured that
agreement. The workers concerned have suffered no loss of
earnings.
4. The Company was not in a position to accurately calculate
the 13 weeks average earnings of the 6 workers concerned. The
Union was informed that the 109% figure could well be
erroneous. The payroll clerk acted in good faith in trying to
facilitate a request from the Union. There was an error in
the calculation and it does not follow that errors of this
nature should be used to determine workers earning levels.
5. Clause 10 of the agreement specifies that there shall be
no follow on or consequential claims against the Company
resulting from the acceptance and signing of the agreement.
This claim undermines clause 10.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court does not
consider any alteration of the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is warranted. The Court therefore decides that the
Recommendation should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
6th August, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.