Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91607 Case Number: LCR13603 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: C.P.M. EUROPE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning compensation for loss of responsibility allowance for 8 workers.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the submissions made and the provisions of
the agreement relating to changing of shift the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91607 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR13603
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1990
PARTIES: C.P.M. EUROPE LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning compensation for loss of responsibility
allowance for 8 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is involved in heavy engineering industry
and in 1987 introduced 4 cycle shift working. In
addition to shift payments, a responsibility allowance was
paid which was divided evenly between the workers on the 4
cycle shift. From 1988 to 1991, the number of dies
produced by the Company declined from 2,118 to 1,482. In
January, 1991 the Company discontinued the 4 cycle shift
and reverted to a 5 day 3 cycle shift.
2. Clause 8.1. of the Company/Union agreement states as
follows:
"Any employee who has worked shift for 2 or more
consecutive months, who is required by management to
revert to hours which attract a lower or no premium shall
retain the higher rate for a period of 6 weeks."
The workers were compensated for the loss of the shift and
responsibility allowances by the Company on the basis of
the agreement. The Union made a claim for compensation
for loss of the responsibility allowance which they
claimed was not covered by the agreement.
3. Following local negotiations, the claim was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on 16th October, 1991. No resolution
was possible at conciliation and the claim was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on
14th November, 1991. A Labour Court investigation took
place in Wexford on 18th February, 1992, the earliest date
suitable to both parties.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The responsibility allowance of £13.26 per week was
paid to workers who worked unsupervised at weekends and
for unspecified additional duties. The issue of the
responsibility allowance is not covered by the
Company/Union agreement. The workers benefited from the
allowance for a period of 3/4 years and are seeking
compensation of 2 years' loss of earnings.
2. A precedent exists for the payment of compensation.
A worker was paid £600 when he ceased to work unsupervised
(details supplied). The basis for the payment of
compensation is, therefore, well established within the
Company's custom and practice.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The responsibility allowance is not specifically
mentioned in the Company/Union Agreement. It was not
payable at the time the agreement was signed. While the
allowance is not specifically mentioned, the Company
argues that its approach is in keeping with the spirit and
intent of Clause 8.1 of the agreement.
2. The precedent put forward by the Union refers to a
payment of compensation made to a worker in 1986. This
claim differs from the 1986 case. The responsibility's
of the worker involved in that case were more onerous
(details supplied). The change in shift pattern was
brought about by a downturn in the market for the
Company's product. The Company's offer is fair and
equitable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the light of the submissions made and the provisions of
the agreement relating to changing of shift the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
1st April,1992
J.F./N.Ni.M Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.