Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92294 Case Number: LCR13691 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH BISCUITS - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;BAKERY AND FOODWORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION |
A dispute regarding the implementation of a skills training programme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has come to the conclusion that having regard to existing
agreed practice in the plant no valid basis whatsoever exists to
support the claim of the worker directly concerned for the
extension of shift payments to her while working with the group
concerned.
The Court is further of the opinion that the existence of this or
similar claims should not delay the full and immediate
introduction of the proposed training programme.
The Court therefore does not recommend payment of the Union's
claim and does recommend that the training programme be accepted
and commenced without any further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92294 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13691
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH BISCUITS
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
BAKERY AND FOODWORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding the implementation of a skills training
programme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures and distributes a range of
biscuit products. The Company employs 898 workers of whom 595
are general workers. In 1989, the Company sought to initiate
a skills training programme for workers with the intention of
appointing a panel of relief operators for skilled jobs across
its operations.
2. In early 1989, the Company proposed to the Unions the
introduction of a skills training programme. After
negotiation, the Unions balloted their members with a
recommendation for acceptance in June, 1991. The ballot was
abandoned after a number of hours because of confusion as to
who would benefit from the training allowance. This problem
was resolved between the parties. The Unions then made a
claim on the Company on behalf of a newly-trained worker. The
claim was that the worker should, in addition to the grade
payment when working with the new skill, also get the shift
payment payable to the other workers in the area.
3. The Company rejected the claim on the basis that the
worker was working with workers who although not on shift
received a protected shift payment for historical reasons. A
conciliation conference was held on 21st February, 1992 with a
number of issues in dispute. The Industrial Relations Officer
by letter dated 28th February, 1992 recommended that the
training programme be implemented and the rate of the worker
be pursued as a separate matter. This proposal was accepted
by the Company but rejected by a ballot of the workers.
The claim was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation on 21st May, 1992. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 4th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions' main concern in this long running issue is the
payment by the Company of the rate for the job. The worker
involved in this dispute should receive the same rate for
doing the same job as the other workers in the area in which
she has been trained to work.
2. The whole question of the appropriate rate for the job is
most important to the Unions and all workers should be treated
equally and fairly. All workers must benefit equally from the
conditions associated with the job. The introduction of the
training scheme should not override other situations. The
principal is that the Company should pay the rate for the job.
If it does this, the Unions will immediately implement the
training scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As part of a comprehensive productivity package agreed in
March, 1989, the Unions and the Company committed themselves
without further claims to implement training and development
programmes. It is a source of great disappointment to the
Company that 3 years from the introduction of the skills
training programme, it is still not in operation in the
Company.
2. The Company has a number of working patterns day, shift,
part-time morning, part-time evening and seasonal. The shift
premium is paid in recognition of the requirement to work an
unsociable pattern. The Company also pays shift premia to a
minority of workers, whose obligation to work shift is
restricted or dormant but who continue to receive the premia
on a protected basis. This type of "red-circling" is
generally accepted in industry and exists in many forms in the
Company where they are the subject of formal agreement or
defacto arrangements which have evolved over the years. As is
the practice with personal protections, they apply to the
individual who is in a job at a point in time and not to
reliefs or permanent replacements. This is accepted by all of
the Unions in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has come to the conclusion that having regard to existing
agreed practice in the plant no valid basis whatsoever exists to
support the claim of the worker directly concerned for the
extension of shift payments to her while working with the group
concerned.
The Court is further of the opinion that the existence of this or
similar claims should not delay the full and immediate
introduction of the proposed training programme.
The Court therefore does not recommend payment of the Union's
claim and does recommend that the training programme be accepted
and commenced without any further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
24th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.