Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92253 Case Number: AD92184 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TEAGASC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation G.C. 14/92 regarding an additional payment for a worker who operates an automatic silage feeder.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92253 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD18492
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation G.C.
14/92 regarding an additional payment for a worker who operates an
automatic silage feeder.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute relates to the introduction of an automatic
silage feeder at Teagasc's Moorepark centre and an agreement
which was reached between Teagasc and the Union on an extra
payment for the driver of the feeder.
2. Negotiations took place in January, 1991, on a Union claim
for a 25% allowance for the driver who operates the automatic
silage feeder. It was agreed that the worker would receive a
20% allowance given the recording skills associated with the
experimental work of the feeder (extra equipment was attached
to the feeder for experimental work). The worker was already
in receipt of a 10% allowance for the operation of the machine
without the addition of the equipment for experimental work.
3. The agreement subsequently became the subject of a dispute
between the parties. Teagasc's position was that the
allowance was payable only when 16 cows were on experiment.
The Union disputed this. The Union's understanding of the
agreement was that it was not stated during negotiations that
the allowance would only apply during experimentation and not
at all other times.
4. A Rights Commissioner's investigation took place on 12th
February, 1992 and the following Recommendation issued on 10th
April, 1992.
"Comment:
I have no doubt that there was mention of a 'minimum
number of cows on experiment' during earlier discussions
with the parties on the issue of the 'extra payment' and
as such, I fail to understand the content of the Union's
letter of the 19th February, 1991.
However, because of the confusion created on this issue
and the need to have the matter speedily resolved I
recommend the following:-
*Recommendation:
I recommend that the worker should accept the agreement
as outlined in Teagasc's letter to the Union dated 22nd
January, 1991.
On his acceptance of same I recommend that the Company
make a 'once off' payment of #500.00 to the worker".
*The worker was named in the Recommendation.
5. Teagasc appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court by
letter dated 15th April, 1992 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court investigation
took place in Cork on 29th July, 1992.
TEAGASC'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Teagasc is fully satisfied that a specific agreement was
reached on the Union's claim on 16th January, 1992 and that
there was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation by either
party as to the terms of the agreement. The Rights
Commissioner is equally unequivocal and states that he has no
doubt that there was mention of "a minimum number of cows on
experiment". The Union in this case has deliberately tried to
create confusion following the negotiations and is now
attempting to deny that the agreement existed.
2. The Union attempted to initiate industrial action at the
centre but it was rejected by the workers when management
explained its position. Teagasc is trying to maintain a
positive and stable industrial relations environment. It is
impossible to maintain this climate if agreements freely
entered into are denied by the Union.
3. Teagasc see no justification in paying the award made by
the Rights Commissioner. To do so would create a dangerous
precedent by rewarding the worker when the Union engages in an
unacceptable activity. It may encourage similar behaviour in
the future, thereby affecting the union/management
relationship.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At no time during the negotiations with Teagasc did the
management state that the increased bonus would only apply to
experimentation and that the operation of the feeder at other
times would not attract the bonus. The driving differential
was claimed because of the size of the machine and its
attachments. Teagasc was happy for the worker to operate the
feeder at the tractor allowance of 10%. There is no
comparison between the operation of the tractor and the
feeder.
2. The Union strongly rejects Teagasc's contention that the
bonus was conditional on experimental work. The worker has
been operating the feeder since 5th November, 1990 without
receiving the agreed bonus payment. The introduction of the
feeder has changed the system of work and has entailed greater
productivity. It needs considerable skill to operate (details
supplied) and its size and value has increased the driver's
responsibility.
3. Teagasc has accepted that the operation of the feeder
warrants an extra payment. The worker is at this time
considerably out of pocket while many thousands of pounds have
accrued to Teagasc. The Union is not entirely satisfied with
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation but in the interests
of finding a resolution to this long running dispute, it is
seeking the full and immediate implementation of the
recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_______________________
7th August, 1992. Chairman
J.F./J.C.