Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9367 Case Number: DEC931 Section / Act: S57(1) Parties: D.G. HICKEY AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE AND EMPLOYMENT |
Decision as to whether workers qualify as Job Class 3 workers under the terms of the Womens Clothing and Millinery Employment Regulation Order.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the statements of the parties and
heard the views expressed by the workers concerned finds:
(1) That Ms. Patricia O'Toole was covered by the scope of Job
Class 3 as defined in the Employment Regulation Order
(Women's Clothing & Millinery Joint Labour Committee).
(2) That there are no grounds to conclude that any of the other
workers concerned were covered by the scope of Job Class 3 as
defined in the Employment Regulation Order (Womens Clothing
and Millinery Joint Labour Committee).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th April, 1993 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. _____________________________________
Deputy Chairman.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9367 DECISION NO. DEC193
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 57(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: D.G. HICKEY AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY P.D. GARDINER & COMPANY SOLICITORS)
AND
DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE AND EMPLOYMENT
SUBJECT:
1. Decision as to whether workers qualify as Job Class 3 workers
under the terms of the Womens Clothing and Millinery Employment
Regulation Order.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was involved in operations covered by the
terms of the Employment Regulation Order for the Women's
Clothing and Millinery Joint Labour Committee until it
closed on the 31st August, 1991.
2. In February, 1992, five former employees complained to
the Department that they had been paid the Job Class 5 rate
instead of the Job Class 3 rate of remuneration while
employed by the Company. They based their claims on the fact
that the work they performed was that of Sample
Makers/Jumpers (Job Class 3) and not that of Machinists (Job
Class 5).
3. An Inspector from the Department investigated the
claims and on the basis of information obtained, wrote to the
Company requesting payment of arrears for the five workers
whom it was felt should have been paid the Job Class 3 rate
of pay. The Company rejected this and on the 22nd December,
1992 wrote to the Labour Court seeking a determination under
Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Court
heard the case on the 19th February, 1993.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers performed the duties of Sample
Makers/Jumpers (Job Class 3).
2. The number of samples made annually was in excess of
140.
3. The workers performed many duties outside the range of
those applicable to Job Class 5.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers were not employed full-time in the making of
samples or as "Jumpers".
2. A total of 140 samples were made annually. The workers
were not employed full-time making such a small number of
samples.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the statements of the parties and
heard the views expressed by the workers concerned finds:
(1) That Ms. Patricia O'Toole was covered by the scope of Job
Class 3 as defined in the Employment Regulation Order
(Women's Clothing & Millinery Joint Labour Committee).
(2) That there are no grounds to conclude that any of the other
workers concerned were covered by the scope of Job Class 3 as
defined in the Employment Regulation Order (Womens Clothing
and Millinery Joint Labour Committee).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th April, 1993 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. _____________________________________
Deputy Chairman.