Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91564 Case Number: LCR13520 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CANTRELL & COCHRANE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
(i) Bonus Scheme standards. (ii) Sick Pay Scheme for temporary staff.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has fully taken account of all the issues raised by
the parties in their oral and written submissions and finds as
follows:
1. Line No. 1. - Standard Value
The Court recognise that the results of work study
evaluations of standards are subject to some variations
and that it is unusual for the results of studies taken
either by the same individual or different individuals to
be exactly the same. The results will usually as with
this case be within acceptable tolerances.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the
standard to be applied to Line No. 1 at 2000 dozen per
hour should be 10,723 dozen per day.
The Court recommendation is specific to the working on
Line No. 1 and should not be considered a precedent for
the standards on any other line.
2. Sick Pay Scheme
The Court considers that the Company and the Union should
draw up proposals for a sick pay scheme for temporary
workers. In the event that the parties are unable to
reach agreement the Court will endeavour to be of
assistance.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91564 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13520
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
PARTIES: CANTRELL & COCHRANE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (i) Bonus Scheme standards.
(ii) Sick Pay Scheme for temporary staff.
BACKGROUND:
BONUS SCHEME STANDARDS:
2. In June, 1991, the Company proposed to introduce revised
standards on production line I. A cushion allowance was proposed
during the phase-in period. Standards have been examined twice in
recent months. The Company are proposing to implement standards
based on the outcome of the two studies. The Union rejects these
standards but would consider standards resulting from the second
examination, a parallel but separate study carried out by the
Company's industrial engineer and the Union's industrial engineer.
Local level discussion failed to resolve the issue and the matter
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 10th October,
1991. Conciliation conferences were held on 17th September, 1991,
and 11th November, 1991, and as no agreement could be reached the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court hearing took place on 26th November,
1991.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the 1976 Company/Union agreement the Company has the
right to introduce changed standards to reflect changes in
operating circumstances.
2. There is adequate protection in that agreement against the
introduction of incorrect targets.
3. It is critical for the Company that it should only pay for
the level of productivity achieved. In existing circumstances
and under non productivity conditions the Company has
continued to pay "average bonus" level of 4.28 bonus hours.
This constitutes almost maximum bonus level irrespective of
the levels of actual productivity.
4. For a considerable time the Company has been burdened with
unnecessary high average bonus payments without equivalent
productivity.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has agreed to discuss with the Company in spite
of grave reservations, new standards for line I.
2. The Union would be in a better position to discuss
standards from the joint study and to have them assessed by
their industrial engineer.
3. Standards from the first study have been rejected by the
Union on the advice of their industrial engineer.
SICK PAY FOR TEMPORARY STAFF:
The Company employ up to 40 temporary employees at various
times during the year. This is because of the seasonal nature
of the business. They are paid the same rates of pay as
permanent staff and are included in the bonus scheme. They
are not covered by a sick pay scheme. The Union claim
temporary staff work up to 52 weeks of the year. Accordingly
on behalf of temporary staff the Union submitted a claim for
the introduction of a sick pay scheme. The Company rejected
the claim. Local level discussion failed to resolve the issue
and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
on 10th September, 1991. Conciliation conferences were held
on 17th September, 1991, and 11th October, 1991, and as no
agreement could be reached the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
hearing took place on 26th November, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. A number of temporary employees work 50 to 53 weeks in the
year. They are subject to illness like any other employees.
2. The Company policy is to utilise temporary labour. This
occurs throughout the year and is not restricted to peak
periods, or periods of annual leave. When they fall ill they
suffer financially. They are certified sick by the Company
doctor but do not receive any payment from the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
6. 1. Temporary employees take up employment on the clear
understanding that they will not receive sick pay.
2. The costs of a sick pay scheme would make the Company
uncompetitive when compared to other employers in the soft
drinks industry where payment of sick pay to casuals is not a
feature of their employment.
3. Absenteeism among temporary employees is generally low.
Fears of the Company that an increase in absenteeism would
result if a sick pay scheme was introduced are well founded,
when it compares absenteeism among permanent employees and
temporary employees.
4. As part of recent discussion the Company introduced
compassionate leave for temporary employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has fully taken account of all the issues raised by
the parties in their oral and written submissions and finds as
follows:
1. Line No. 1. - Standard Value
The Court recognise that the results of work study
evaluations of standards are subject to some variations
and that it is unusual for the results of studies taken
either by the same individual or different individuals to
be exactly the same. The results will usually as with
this case be within acceptable tolerances.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the
standard to be applied to Line No. 1 at 2000 dozen per
hour should be 10,723 dozen per day.
The Court recommendation is specific to the working on
Line No. 1 and should not be considered a precedent for
the standards on any other line.
2. Sick Pay Scheme
The Court considers that the Company and the Union should
draw up proposals for a sick pay scheme for temporary
workers. In the event that the parties are unable to
reach agreement the Court will endeavour to be of
assistance.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
7th January, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.