Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91501 Case Number: LCR13555 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DEALGAN MILK PRODUCTS LTD - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the cessation by the Company of the payment of bonuses and Sunday premiums to temporary workers.
Recommendation:
The Court is of the opinion that there is a wide disparity
between the parties as to the extent to which an agreement in
relation to the payment of allowances to temporary workers
existed. It is also apparent to the Court that a similar
disparity emerges as to whether or not there was an
acknowledgment or agreement to the effect that the payment of
the allowances should cease.
Having regard to all the aspects of the case the Court is of the
belief, having regard to the disparities which do exist, that
the parties should meet locally with a view to negotiating a
formal agreement covering the employment of temporary workers
after the 1st March 1992.
Insofar as the period of time since the cessation of the payment
of the allowances and the date of the issue of this
recommendation the Court recommends that the workers concerned
be paid compensation equivalent to 50% of what they would have
received had the Company continued to pay the allowances.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91501 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13555
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DEALGAN MILK PRODUCTS LTD
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the cessation by the Company of the
payment of bonuses and Sunday premiums to temporary workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a dairy and a transport fleet in the
production and distribution of liquid milk. When necessary the
Company employs temporary lorry helpers and dairy workers to
augment the permanent staff. Up to 1989 the Company paid the
following allowances to permanent and temporary workers:-
(1) Sunday allowance (fleet) - £15.38 per week
(2) Production allowance (fleet) - £15.87 per week
(3) Dairy bonus (dairy) - £33.86 per week
(4) Production Bonus (dairy) - £16.42 per week
Allowances for the temporary fleet workers were paid on a
pro-rata basis (i.e. juvenile to adult rates). In 1989 the
Company ceased payment of the allowances and bonuses to
temporary workers. The Union claims that the Company ceased
these payments without prior consultation or agreement and that
they should be restored retrospectively. The Company claims
that the allowances and bonuses were discontinued by joint
agreement with the Union and should not be restored. No
agreement was reached at local level and the dispute was
referred on 17th July, 1991 to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 13th August, 1991 at which
no progress could be made to resolve the dispute. The matter
was referred to the Labour Court on 16th September, 1991 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Dundalk on 22nd
January, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The allowances and bonuses concerned have been in
existence since the late 1970's and were established and
agreed to cover both permanent and temporary workers.
Without prior consultation or agreement with the Union the
Company ceased these payments to temporary workers in 1989.
2. Due to the nature of the temporary workers' employment
it was not until 1990 that the Union realised that these
payments had ceased. The Union referred the case of one of
the temporary workers to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation as a test case. However, the Rights
Commissioner made his recommendation on the basis that it
would not be used as a precedent. The Union therefore
pursued its claim on behalf of the other temporary workers
through the industrial relations procedures.
3. If the Company found it necessary to make changes in
the payments to temporary workers it should have held
negotiations with the Union in 1989. The arbitrary way in
which the Company ignored the long-standing agreement on
allowance and bonus payments is unacceptable. The Union
never accepted cessation of these payments for temporary
workers and accordingly they should be restored
retrospectively. The claim is for restoration of payments
rather than additional payments and cannot be considered as
contrary to the terms of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress(P.E.S.P.).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The payment of allowances and bonuses to temporary
workers was discontinued by joint agreement with the Union
in 1989. They should therefore not be restored now or in
the future.
2. In the dairy section the allowance and bonus payments
were introduced in respect of changes experienced by the
workforce of the time, including the introduction of a new
bottling line. When the bottling line ceased operation in
1988 it was agreed that payments to permanent personnel
would be effectively "red circled" and that temporary
workers would be excluded.
3. The Company believes that the attempt to restore or
introduce these type of payments for the categories
concerned arises from a case brought before a Rights
Commissioner, who recommended that his Recommendation
"forms no precedent or claim for any other case" and that
"exceptional circumstances" existed for an award he made at
that time. Both the Company and the Union freely accepted
that recommendation.
4. The Company is operating in a very competitive
business and has initiated an overall cost reduction
programme in consultation with the Union. The Company's
competitors do not make similar payments to temporary
workers and it cannot afford the introduction of additional
costs. Such additional costs are contrary to the terms of
the P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the opinion that there is a wide disparity
between the parties as to the extent to which an agreement in
relation to the payment of allowances to temporary workers
existed. It is also apparent to the Court that a similar
disparity emerges as to whether or not there was an
acknowledgment or agreement to the effect that the payment of
the allowances should cease.
Having regard to all the aspects of the case the Court is of the
belief, having regard to the disparities which do exist, that
the parties should meet locally with a view to negotiating a
formal agreement covering the employment of temporary workers
after the 1st March 1992.
Insofar as the period of time since the cessation of the payment
of the allowances and the date of the issue of this
recommendation the Court recommends that the workers concerned
be paid compensation equivalent to 50% of what they would have
received had the Company continued to pay the allowances.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
11th February, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman