Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90606 Case Number: AD918 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TAYTO LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 337/90 concerning the payment of an additional premium for work on a caustic boil out on Saturdays.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views, oral and written of the
parties does not find grounds for concession of the claim and
accordingly rejects it and upholds the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90606 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD891
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: TAYTO LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's recommendation
No. S.T. 337/90 concerning the payment of an additional premium
for work on a caustic boil out on Saturdays.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns five cooks who are involved in the total
cleaning down of the cookers on Saturdays. The process is known
as "a caustic boil out" and involves the spraying of a hot mixture
of water and caustic soda. Because of the nature of the
substances used the cooks are trained carefully and are issued
with protective clothing. The boil out is carried out every
Saturday on overtime with each cook working every second Saturday.
In May, 1990, the Union claimed that the five cooks should receive
a #5 premium for carrying out the operation (i.e. #2.50 per week).
The Company rejected the claim and the matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation. On 6th October, 1990, the
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation.
"I have a lot of sympathy for the claimants in relation to
the nature of the work in question. However the procedures
and the substances associated therewith, have been in use
for the past 20 years and given the rigid differential
system in existence at the plant it is not feasible to treat
the claim in isolation from this overall context.
Furthermore the claim only represents #2.50 per man per week
as the work is only performed once per fortnight. This is
an insignificant sum compared to about #90 for the
Saturday's overtime and not worth upsetting the differential
structure for such a relatively small sum. I therefore
recommend that the claim fails for these reasons".
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
18th October, 1990, appealed it to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on 10th January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The spraying of a hot mixture of water and caustic soda
is very dangerous and great care must always be taken by the
cooks at all times. Despite taking precautions the workers
still suffer burns from time to time. It is not unusual for
workers involved in this special type of operation to receive
some kind of allowance.
2. The Rights Commissioner stated that he had a lot of
sympathy for the claimants; however, due to factors that are
not relevant he did not recommend in their favour. The Rights
Commissioner is of the opinion that because the cooks have
worked under the same conditions for 20 years, there is no
need for change. The Rights Commissioner also felt that it
was not worth upsetting the differential structure for such a
relatively small sum. The Union rejects this view.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This operation has been in place for 20 years without
complaint. Given the strict adherence to procedures and the
wearing of proper safety equipment, the Company is happy to
report that there have been no accidents.
2. The process takes place on Saturday. Each worker is paid
#90 for the job. The pay is based on normal time for the job
at overtime rates. A claim for a further premium is
unjustified in such circumstances.
3. The Company operates a system of rigid differentials
throughout the various categories which has been agreed with
the Union. Any concession on this claim could have serious
knock-on effects for other categories.
4. The Rights Commissioner as part of his investigation,
visited the plant to observe the process and was satisfied
that there was no justification in the claim.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the views, oral and written of the
parties does not find grounds for concession of the claim and
accordingly rejects it and upholds the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
30th January, 1991 ------------
B O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman