Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93334 Case Number: AD9362 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC86/93 concerning the non-availability of an incentive scheme to a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the views of the parties as expressed
in their oral and written submissions and the additional
documentation provided, is not satisfied that a "scheme" in the
context of the agreement applied to the claimant prior to
February, 1992. The Court is further confirmed in this view by the
fact that the claimant has been earning incentive payments since
February, 1992.
Accordingly the Court finds that in accordance with the agreement
the claimant should be deemed to have commenced on the scheme in
February, 1992 and his payment of incentive should be adjusted
accordingly.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93334 DECISION NO. AD6293
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. BC86/93 concerning the non-availability of an
incentive scheme to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company introduced an incentive scheme in February,
1990. The scheme was implemented on a phased basis
throughout the organisation. It is a group scheme,
calculations are made on a group basis and are linked to the
production of boxed quality-approved wiring harnesses.
Payment is made subject to the group achieving an efficiency
of over 100%. For employees commencing on the scheme later
than February, 1990, it was agreed with the group of unions
that they would receive back-dated incentive premia from
February, 1990 to the date they were integrated into the
scheme. It was further agreed that this would be calculated
by observing efficiency figures for a six-week period
following the commencement of the scheme and the average
weekly efficiency figure would be used as a basis for
calculating the retrospective payment.
2. The worker was assigned to the small business group in
the Company and introduced to the incentive scheme on the
26th March, 1990. The group was comprised of 30 operatives
and the appropriate calculation during the six-week period
was completed to determine the retrospective payments under
the scheme. The efficiencies produced were less than 100%
and therefore the group was not entitled to a back-dated
incentive premium. In May, 1990, the group was split into
smaller groups. The worker's group is now comprised of 13
operatives. The efficiencies again were below 100% for this
group and they did not qualify for an incentive premium. On
17th February, 1992, the worker transferred to another
department manufacturing a different product and this time
due to efficiencies above 100% the group received an
incentive premium.
3. The Union sought the application of the incentive
premium for the worker back dated from March, 1992 to 5th
February, 1990. The Company refused and the matter was
referred by the Union to a Rights Commissioner. In his
recommendation No. BC86/93 issued on the 7th May, 1993 the
Rights Commissioner found:
"that no evidence exist that the Company acted other
than reasonably with regard to the non-availability of
the scheme to the worker for the period in question"
(The worker's name was used in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The Rights Commissioner recommended:
"that the claim by the trade union must fail".
4. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on the 25th May, 1993.
The Court heard the appeal on the 29th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Other employees have worked simultaneously in
departments with the worker and have been compensated for the
non-availability of the incentive scheme.
2. The worker was involved with one other employee
in producing radio harnesses. The standards set for
producing radio harnesses were for a production process
involving more than two production workers.
3. The other worker involved in the radio harness
production received an incentive premium for the period he
worked alongside the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker did not earn an incentive premium because he
was part of a group of employees who earned no incentive as
they did not produce at an average weekly efficiency of over
100%.
2. Standards were set to allow the worker the opportunity
to earn an incentive premium during the period.
3. The worker is the only employee of this group who has
a grievance against the company in this regard.
4. All procedures and regulations pertaining to the
incentive scheme were adopted fairly and correctly in respect
of the worker.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the views of the parties as expressed
in their oral and written submissions and the additional
documentation provided, is not satisfied that a "scheme" in the
context of the agreement applied to the claimant prior to
February, 1992. The Court is further confirmed in this view by the
fact that the claimant has been earning incentive payments since
February, 1992.
Accordingly the Court finds that in accordance with the agreement
the claimant should be deemed to have commenced on the scheme in
February, 1992 and his payment of incentive should be adjusted
accordingly.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th August, 1993 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. ____________________________________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.