Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91213 Case Number: AD9156 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ASSMANN ELECTRONICS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
An appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (C.W. 55/91) regarding the proposed withdrawal of a cliploading allowance to two workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearings, the Court is of the view that
the case should be met by the Company paying each of the claimants
a sum of #3,500 in full and final settlement of their claim.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91213 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5691
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ASSMANN ELECTRONICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (C.W.
55/91) regarding the proposed withdrawal of a cliploading
allowance to two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1974 and employs 105 people
producing electronic components. It has experienced trading
difficulties since November, 1990 due to an increasingly
competitive market. As a result, the Company began to
rationalise its activities and eight redundancies were sought
from four different areas on the basis of least service.
Three redundancies were sought from the cliploading section
but, because of the long service of the workers, it was agreed
to redeploy them to other areas. (One of the three
subsequently accepted a redundancy package).
2. The Company agreed to red circle the two workers' higher
rate of basic pay. The workers were also on a cliploading
allowance of #69 per week and the Union sought to have this
red circled also. The case was brought before a Rights
Commissioner for recommendation and the following
recommendation C.W. 55/91 was issued on 10th April, 1991.
"Recommendation:
I recommend that the two workers concerned are each paid
a lump sum of #2,300 in full and final settlement of this
dispute, with effect from 17th February, 1991."
The recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 by the
Union and the Company in letters of 19th April and 2nd May,
1991 respectively. Labour Court investigations into the
dispute took place 6th and 26th of June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The cliploading allowance of #69 per week is over and
above the basic rate of #160 per week. The term allowance is
a misnomer as it is in effect the basic rate for the
cliploading job. In addition to increasing in line with basic
pay, it is built into the rate for calculating overtime
payments. In line with established custom and practice, the
workers believed that the allowance would be retained in the
event of redeployment. It is viewed as basic pay and not an
add on payment such as overtime or shift allowance.
2. No worker can afford a 43% reduction in basic pay. The
Company's argument that one of the workers signed an
undertaking in 1988 that the cliploading allowance would cease
on transfer, bears out the Union's contention that the
established custom and practice of retaining the higher rate
on redeployment included the cliploading allowance. In any
case the letter mentioned a review of the appointment in
January, 1989. The continuation of the appointment beyond
this time would indicate the permanence of the appointment.
The other worker did not agree that the allowance would cease
on transfer.
3. The Company produced to the Court on 6th June, 1991 a copy
of a "draft agreement" which suggested that there was an
agreement in place that the cliploading allowance could be
bought out for a payment of 12 weeks' allowance on assignment
to a new area. This "draft agreement" is not dated or signed
by a Union Official nor would it appear that any other copy is
available. In 1981 there were six people responsible for
operating four cliploading machines. The Company decided to
buy new machines thereby needing three cliploaders to
transfer. An agreement was reached with the workers to buy
out the allowance. This never happened and the then managing
director subsequently gave a commitment to the shop steward
that the "draft agreement" would be destroyed. In any event
it is not a legitimate Company/Union agreement but a private
deal by operators who were only in receipt of the allowance
for a few months at the time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The cliploading allowance is specifically related to the
task of cliploading and custom and practice dictates that
allowances are never red circled. The Company's original
position was that three workers in cliploading should be made
redundant. On Union representation, it was agreed to retain
the workers because of their long service. The Company should
not be penalised for its flexibility, by having to bear
additional costs. It has already been agreed to red circle
the worker's basic rate which is an unanticipated cost.
2. One worker clearly understood that the allowance was of a
temporary nature and signed a letter to that effect in
October, 1988 (details supplied). By implication, this
agreement should apply to both. Although the allowance was
subject to review in January, 1989, the arrangement was not
intended as a permanent one.
3. The 1981 agreement (details supplied) made clear provision
for the eventuality of its removal. It expressly stipulated
that in the event of workers being removed from cliploading,
the allowance would cease. The agreement is clearly a
legitimate one and its purpose and meaning were clearly
understood by all concerned. The recollections of management
at the time substantiate this (details supplied).
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearings, the Court is of the view that
the case should be met by the Company paying each of the claimants
a sum of #3,500 in full and final settlement of their claim.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________________
12th July, 1991. Chairman
J.F./J.C.