Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92415 Case Number: AD92215 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WATERFORD FOODS LTD. - and - A WORKER;THE AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL;WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner Recommendation (ST221/92) concerning the seniority list in the Company.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties and the reasoning of the Rights
Commissioner finds no grounds to amend the Recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the claimant's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92415 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD21592
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WATERFORD FOODS LTD.
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY THE AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL
WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner Recommendation
(ST221/92) concerning the seniority list in the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company and the Union entered into negotiations on a
new Quality Control (Q.C.) Agreement within the Quality
Control Section in the Dungarvan plant in October, 1991. The
agreement was finally concluded and implemented on the 1st
August, 1992 but during the negotiations the question of
seniority in the area arose and management was asked to
compile a seniority list for the section in question. This
task was duly carried out and queries were received from 8
employees in the area. The claimant maintained that, based
on his service from 1973, his proper placing on the seniority
list should be fourth. Discussions on the matter took place
at local level after which the matter was referred to a
Rights' Commissioner.
2. The Rights' Commissioner investigated the matter on the
12th and 22nd May, 1992 and issued his recommendation on the
17th June, 1992. He found that the Company records clearly
showed an August, 1977 start date for the claimant in a Q.C.
defined and remunerated function. Furthermore, the claimant
had not presented strong enough evidence to warrant placing
him fourth on the list and he recommended that his proper
place on the list was twelvth.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When management produced the seniority lists, the
claimant was on the bottom on one, 13th on the next but
eventually finished up at 12th position. He did not agree
with this position and pointed out that he was performing day
laboratory work of a Q.C. nature since 27th June, 1973 and
not from 1977 as the Company insist was the beginning of his
Q.C. status.
2. The Company bases its selection of the date in 1977 on
the fact that there was documented payment involved in a deal
with Irish Whey Products. The claimant maintains, however,
that from the day he took over the job as Milko Tester
Operator (1973), payment was made to a number of companies
for milk and cream.
3. He questioned why there had to be payment on his results
to qualify him for Q.C. status while the majority of work
carried out in Q.C. laboratory today does not entail payment
of any sort.
4. Laboratory management did not inform him that his work
was changing to Q.C. because of cream sales to Irish Whey
Products.
5. All the work carried out in the Old Mastitis Laboratory,
Majonnier, Q.C. Laboratory. (Intake Laboratory daywork) are
written into the ISO 9002 manual as work which was carried
out in the Q.C. Laboratory.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker commenced employment in 1973 on yard-rate.
In December, 1977, a new rate was agreed for workers carrying
out laboratory duties i.e. #1.23 per hour. In 1978 job
evaluation was introduced which resulted in an agreement to
two new laboratory grades i.e. Laboratory Grade 1 and
Laboratory Grade 2. The worker was on Lab. Grade 1.
2. There were 3 sections of the Laboratory on site
(i) Quality Control Section
(ii) Process Control Section
(iii) Milk Intake Section
3. The criteria used for compiling the present seniority
list was as follows:
- Date of commencement in the old Quality Control
Laboratory on either Laboratory Grade 1 or Laboratory
Grade 2 day work.
- Permanence of employment and doing laboratory tests.
- Technological complexity of tests.
- Must have a significant level of responsibility.
- Quantity of laboratory tests for payment purposes.
4. The worker was employed in the milk intake section and
was in receipt of Lab. Grade 1 payment. Only 6 people, all
working in the Quality Control Section, were on Lab. Grade 2,
the remaining laboratory employees were on Lab. Grade 1
payments. When the Lab. Grades following job evaluation were
introduced, the worker felt that the nature of his duties
warranted Lab. Grade 2 and his appeal was heard by
representatives of both Management and Union. Both parties
agreed his Lab. Grade 1 adequately compensated him.
5. When the worker was on holidays relief for him was
provided by a laboratory shift employee from the milk intake
section. At no stage did he provide relief or indeed carry
out any duties relating to the Quality Control Section.
6. In conclusion, the worker, prior to August, 1977 worked
solely on milk intake. From August 1977, the technological
complexity of his work had increased. The tests which he
carried out did not carry sufficient responsibility to
warrant his being placed higher on the seniority lists prior
to 1977. The number of tests carried out and the testing for
payment purposes did not merit his being placed higher than
12th on the list.
Decision:
5. The Court having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties and the reasoning of the Rights
Commissioner finds no grounds to amend the Recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the claimant's appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd November, 1992 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. ------------------------------------
Deputy Chairman.