Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91601 Case Number: AD92132 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 411/91 in a dispute relating to compensation for alleged overworking of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has come to the conclusion that the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91601 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD13292
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 411/91 in a dispute relating to
compensation for alleged overworking of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker had originally been employed on an assembly line as
a Line Assembly Operator but during 1990 requested and was granted
a transfer to a Sub-Assembly Station. She took up her new
position in August, 1990. On commencement of the new job the
worker felt pressurised as she could not maintain the recommended
line speed of 6 minutes and reported this to her Supervisor. A
study of the workers station was carried out by the Industrial
Engineer on 4th October, 1990 and it was found that the worker
worked at a pace 4 seconds above the 6 minutes. In order to bring
the worker back to a pace in line with or below the line speed a
particular aspect of her job was taken from her and reallocated
elsewhere. As a result of this change the Company felt that the
worker should have been able to perform her tasks in 5 minutes and
57 seconds the worker still claimed to have problems in
maintaining the recommended line speed of 6 minutes..
In January, 1991, as a result of a further study of the assembly
process, it was noted that a line operator on an other equivalent
station was 1 minute and 1 second over the required line speed.
The Industrial Engineer reduced the content of the particular work
station by 48.6 seconds. During this time the worker concerned
with the dispute still felt pressurised. In order to equalise
matters and to ensure completion of the job the Engineer
instructed that the worker be given 2 hours help a day from the
beginning of February. The Union contends that the worker's
station was overloaded by 2 hours from October, 1990 to February,
1991 and claims that the worker should be compensated accordingly.
The Company rejected the claim and denies that the worker was
overworked.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation
and recommendation. A Rights Commissioners hearing took place on
26th September, 1991 and the following recommendation issued on
30th October, 1991.
"Recommendation
I recommend that in the very exceptional circumstances of
this case that the claimant receives three days paid leave in
full and final settlement of all her claims and without
precedent or prejudice".
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed to the
Labour Court by the Union in accordance with Section 36(2) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation took
place on 27th January, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the worker's station was
overloaded by 2 hours from October, 1990 to February, 1991.
This overworking placed the worker under excessive pressure
and stress. The overloading of the worker's station and the
workers inability to meet the output often resulted in daily
line-stoppages. The worker brought this problem to the
Company's attention from the time she commenced her job.
2. 2 hours help a day had been promised to the worker by the
Company when it was made aware that the station was
overloaded. This help never materialised leaving the worker
in a vulnerable position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accepts that for a period of six weeks the
worker's station was over demanding. However on completion of
the Industrial Engineer's study the matter was rectified by
reducing the workload on the station. Having rectified the
situation the Company believes the station is technically
correct and that it did not placed an excessive demand on the
worker when compared to the pace of the line.
2. The 2 hours help which the worker was given in February,
1991 was to ensure completion of her job. This help was given
to her when she complained that the workload of an
inexperienced operator, on a neighbouring line, was reduced.
The help was provided in order to equalise matters. The
Company does not acknowledge that there was any overworking
during the previous 6 months.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has come to the conclusion that the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
20th February, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.NiS/J.C.