Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93382 Case Number: AD9366 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 138/93 concerning a worker's claim for a 10% differential for increased responsibilities.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
evidence given at the hearing, the Court is not satisfied that the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation is reasonable in the
circumstances. The Court accordingly upholds the Company's appeal
against the award of #4,500.
However on the basis of promoting a good industrial relations
climate the Court further recommends that the Company make an ex
gratia payment of #1,000 to the worker herein concerned.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93382 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6693
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED
and
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 138/93 concerning a worker's claim for a
10% differential for increased responsibilities.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. As part of the Production Development Plan (P.D.P), the
Craft Supervisor availed of redundancy with the Union's
agreement. The Supervisor, who was a qualified electrician,
was responsible for supervising one electrician and 4 other
workers in the services and fork-lift areas. He was also
responsible for some electrical work. The remaining
electrician took over the electrical work. The supervisory
work became the responsibility of the Plant Engineer.
2. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of the electrician
for a 10% increase in pay for the undertaking of additional
responsibilities. This was rejected by the Company on the
basis that although the electrician would undertake some of
the Supervisor's duties, these were duties normal to an
electrician and not supervisory in nature.
3. The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner's
Service and a Rights Commissioner's investigation took place
on 12th May, 1993. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation,
as follows, issued on 31st May, 1993:
"In my view a fair case has been established by the Union
for some consideration. However I do not favour putting
the Company on another pay roll treadmill by
recommending an ongoing payment as I would be
effectively creating a new function. I would also be
ignoring the possibility of a further increase under the
R.G.S. upcoming. Instead I recommend that he receives
the equivalent of the annual cost of 10% which equals
#1,500 and that is bought out using the internally
agreed formula of three times the annual loss which in
this case equals #4,500. In return for this the
claimant will continue to provide all the cover needed
by the Company including any overseeing".
4. The Recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court by the
Company by letter dated 24th June, 1993. The Labour Court
heard the appeal on 5th August, 1993 (the earliest date
suitable to both parties).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner has recommended 3 years'
compensation for the loss of a 10% differential which the
worker never enjoyed. The worker has no supervisory
responsibilities other than the induction of new workers. The
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is contradictory,
breaches the terms of a number of Labour Court Recommendations
and will lead to other claims within the Company.
2. The worker is not required to carry out either supervisory
or chargehand duties in the Company. Those duties are the
responsibility of the Plant Engineer. The Supervisor who
retired had responsibility for 5 workers covering 3 areas of
the plant. The worker has been informed in writing that his
technical skills will be reflected in the new skills related
grading structure to be implemented post P.D.P.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancy of the Supervisor resulted in the worker
having to undertake the full responsibility for electrical
repairs, servicing of the plant and installation. The
additional responsibilities were recognised by the Rights
Commissioner as meriting financial reward.
2. A precedent for a 10% increase in pay was recognised by
the Company in 1986 when it offered the increase to a
maintenance fitter for undertaking additional
responsibilities. While the supervisor was made redundant,
his responsibilities were not and in a detailed examination of
the facts, the Rights Commissioner decided in favour of the
worker.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
evidence given at the hearing, the Court is not satisfied that the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation is reasonable in the
circumstances. The Court accordingly upholds the Company's appeal
against the award of #4,500.
However on the basis of promoting a good industrial relations
climate the Court further recommends that the Company make an ex
gratia payment of #1,000 to the worker herein concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
20th August, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.