Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91550 Case Number: AD91108 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ACCO IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation C.W. 217/91 concerning a retrospective payment to nine workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in
their oral and written submissions. Given all the circumstances
of this particular case it is the view of the Court that the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should be accepted.
Accordingly the Court rejects the Company appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91550 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10891
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ACCO IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation C.W. 217/91 concerning a retrospective payment to
nine workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the production of a wide range of
office supplies and employs 145 workers at Clonshaugh Industrial
Estate. In August, 1990, following the introduction of a
computerised system in the Data Binder Assembly unit, (DBI) a new
manufacturing cell was established. The parties reached agreement
on a 7½% productivity increase on basic pay in respect of ten
workers. The Union claimed a retrospective payment on behalf of
the workers. Management rejected the claim. The issue was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 23rd
January, 1991 the Rights Commissioner recommended that the
retrospection be paid for the period from 18th June to 19th
August, 1990. Both parties accepted the recommendation.
Subsequently the Union claimed the same retrospection on behalf of
a further nine workers Management rejected the claim. The issue
was again referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On
the 23rd September, 1991 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the Company offers and the Union accepts
that the 7.5% payment is implemented for each of the 9
workers in this dispute not later than 20th August, 1990".
On the 16th October, 1991 the Company appealed the recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the
20th November, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The original claim for retrospection concerned ten named
workers. It was known at that time that at least nine other
employees were indirectly involved. At the first hearing the
Union agreed with the Rights Commissioner that he would deal
with the ten claimants directly involved. This would be
without prejudice to the other workers concerned. The Union
accepted his recommendation. The residual claim was the
subject of the second hearing, and the immediate reaction from
the workers concerned has been to reject the recommendation.
2. There were ongoing negotiations in various departments for
the 7½% productivity increase. The productivity negotiations
in the D.B.I. area were protracted. Management requested that
an independent work study be undertaken and this was agreed to
by the Union. As considerable time was taken up by this
exercise the Union expressed concern to the Company that there
would be a further delay in implementing the productivity
deal. At a meeting with the Company in April, 1990 Management
gave an assurance to the Union that in the event of the work
study exercise not being completed within two weeks,
Management would seek a meeting with the Union and
retrospection would apply from the date of that meeting.
3. The new working practices, when implemented on the 14th
May, 1990, displaced seven workers who were re-employed in
other areas of the plant (details supplied to the Court). New
increased productivity targets and greater flexibility also
operated as from this date. The Union is absolutely certain
that the Company benefited from the productivity agreement of
May, 1990 and that the retrospective period recommended by the
Rights Commissioner in his first recommendation was a fair
compromise. The nine workers concerned should benefit
accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The retrospective payment made to DBI employees related to
productivity agreements which applied to that section only.
The payment was agreed on foot of a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which suggested a compromise because of "a very
fundamental disagreement regarding whether an undertaking (on
retrospection) was given or not". Whatever about the payment
for the ten people involved in that claim there is absolutely
no basis for extending it to cover individuals who were not
party to the case or the alleged undertaking in question.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation of 28th January,
1991 specifically states the following: "It was agreed during
the hearing that my recommendation concerns the period from
14th May to 20th August and is also only concerned with the
ten named persons". The Rights Commissioner thus recognised
clearly that the retrospective issue was specific to the
transferees only. The Company had sought clarification on the
issue at the hearing so that no knock-on claims would arise.
This claim therefore runs counter to Management's
understanding at the original hearing.
3. The claimants have already entered into other productivity
agreements giving them 7.5% increases. The series of
productivity agreements have been concluded over a period of
time with various groups and different implementation dates.
By making this claim, the Union is seeking the benefit of two
different productivity agreements. This is completely
unacceptable. The series of productivity agreements are
essentially self-financing improvements. All the other
productivity agreements have been concluded on this basis.
There is no self-financing element in the present claim.
4. The Company has rejected the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and the claim which gave rise to it on the
grounds that it has no merit. The Company's general policy in
its relations with its employees and the Union is to resolve
matters on their merit while being fair to all concerned.
The recommendation is based on an approach which would suggest
that all claims have merit and should be conceded or
compromised. The company rejects that approach. The facts of
the claims support the Company's view that the issue is a
spurious one.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in
their oral and written submissions. Given all the circumstances
of this particular case it is the view of the Court that the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should be accepted.
Accordingly the Court rejects the Company appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
18th December, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.