Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91479 Case Number: LCR13521 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SCHOEPP VELOURS LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning an increase in pay and compensation for loss of "Call Out" earnings for fitters.
Recommendation:
5. Basic Rate
Having regard to the fact that the volume of work will not
change because of the proposed new attendance arrangements and
to the agreed basis on which the additional payment was
temporarily introduced, and an additional fitter employed, the
Court does not find justification for a continuation of the
£20 p.w. payment to fitters.
On-Call
The Court recommends that the Company should pay the two
fitters who will lose their regular on-call income, a sum of
£1200 each by way of once off compensation. The third fitter
should be paid a pro-rata sum based on the number of call-outs
to which he responded in the year to 31st December, 1991.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91479 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13521
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SCHOEPP VELOURS LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an increase in pay and compensation for
loss of "Call Out" earnings for fitters.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates a textile business with an end
product of velour. The Company employs 250 workers. An
additional dye house was built in 1989, making it possible for
one dye line to rest on the night shift. The Company decided
that repair work should now be done while the line is idle on
nights. This requires the fitters to change from a 2-shift
plus call out to a 3-shift system.
2. During 1989, an additional temporary fitter and an
electrician were recruited to assist with the installation of
plant in the second dye house. In addition, the existing
fitters and electricians (7) received a temporary allowance of
£20 per week to undertake the extra work created by the
addition of the second dye house. The allowance was in place
for a trial period until the Company could establish whether
extra workers were required or the existing workers could cope
with the extra duties. During the summer of 1990, the
temporary fitter and electrician were integrated into the
maintenance department and the allowance was withdrawn from
the existing workers in September, 1990.
3. In June, 1991, the Union made a claim on the Company for
an increase in pay to compensate for additional work on extra
plant and compensation in respect of 3 fitters whose call-out
allowance was withdrawn as a result of the new shift system.
This allowance was £81.55 on an alternate week basis for 2
fitters and on an occasional basis for a third fitter. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on 20th August, 1991. At
conciliation, the Company rejected the Union claim that there
were any grounds for an increase in basic pay. As a gesture
of good will an offer of £75.00 was made to each fitter
affected by the proposal. The Company stated that its policy
was to maintain changes in rates resulting from changes in
conditions for a period of 18 weeks. The offer was rejected
by the Union and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation on 6th September, 1991.
A Labour Court investigation took place in Wexford on 27th
November, 1991.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposals alter a system whereby there were
2 fitters on days, 2 fitters on call and 1 fitter on a 2-shift
roster to a system whereby all fitters would operate a 3-shift
system. The Union accepts that a change from a 2-shift to a
3-shift system will increase earnings (details supplied);
however, there is no additional help being provided in the
evening shift and the £20 interim payment is being withdrawn.
The Union is of the view that the new system including the
additional responsibility of the new dye house merits the
restoration of the £20 per week allowance and its addition to
basic pay.
2. The loss of the call-out allowance affects 3 fitters
(details supplied). Research undertaken by the Union
indicates that settlements in relation to compensation for
loss of earnings cover a much longer period than the 18 weeks
proposed by the Company. The Union is seeking £700 per annum
reducing over a 6 year period by £100 per annum in order to
cushion the loss of approximately £41 per week in earnings.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's decision to change from a 2-shift system to
a 3-shift system was based on the construction of the new dye
house. This made it possible for repair work to be carried
out at night time when one line was idle, rather than having
to stop the line as was the practice heretofore. The workers
involved have a liability to work shifts and this is
compensated for by the higher shift premium. The Company is
prepared to make a once-off goodwill payment of £75 to each of
the fitters affected.
2. There was a temporary payment of £20 per week made to 4
fitters and 3 electricians to cover the work necessitated by
the new dye line. It was agreed that the Company would review
the allowance to decide whether it should continue or whether
new staff should be recruited. In September, 1990, the
allowance was withdrawn because the Company decided that the
new plant required extra workers. An electrician and fitter
who had previously been recruited to assist with the
installation of the new plant were integrated into the
maintenance department.
3. The loss of the call-out allowance affects 2 fitters and a
third who earned the allowance during holidays, etc. The
Company is prepared to offer £733 compensation which is the
equivalent of 18 weeks' compensation. This is a formula which
has previously been used by the Company to compensate workers
for similar losses.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Basic Rate
Having regard to the fact that the volume of work will not
change because of the proposed new attendance arrangements and
to the agreed basis on which the additional payment was
temporarily introduced, and an additional fitter employed, the
Court does not find justification for a continuation of the
£20 p.w. payment to fitters.
On-Call
The Court recommends that the Company should pay the two
fitters who will lose their regular on-call income, a sum of
£1200 each by way of once off compensation. The third fitter
should be paid a pro-rata sum based on the number of call-outs
to which he responded in the year to 31st December, 1991.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
____________________
9th January, 1992. Chairman
J.F./J.C.