Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93555 Case Number: LCR14277 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Restoration of designation and differential.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submission from the parties and
the additional information supplied by the Company subsquent to
the hearing, recommends that the Company's proposal be accepted
and in addition, because fork-lift drivers received compensation
the Court considers it reasonable that the claimant be offered and
accept a sum of #100.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93555 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14277
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Restoration of designation and differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is situated in Ballyconnell, Co. Cavan,
employing approximately 120 workers. The dispute concerns a
machine operator who was designated a relief fork-lift
driver. The worker received a 7% differential for performing
fork-lift duties.
In 1992, a Works Agreement was concluded between the Company
and the Union to improve efficiency and cut costs. Clause 8
of the Agreement concerned the flexibility of workers to do
different jobs. The 7% differential was withdrawn from the
worker concerned. The Company claims that because of the
flexibility agreement, other workers were more available to
do relief fork-lift driving. The Union is claiming the
restoration of the fork-lift designation and the 7%
differential for the worker. The Company rejects the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
but no agreement was reached. On 21st September, 1993, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 1st November,1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The job of relief fork-lift driver has not disappeared
with the signing of the Works Agreement. The worker
concerned had attended a special training course on fork-lift
driving 3 years ago. The new Agreement stresses the safety
requirements of the job. The worker concerned is one of the
few workers fully qualified as a fork-lift driver.
2. The Company claims that the worker cannot be allowed to
perform fork-lift duties except when he can be spared from
his own shift. The new Works Agreement states that workers
should be flexible to perform many different jobs. There is
no reason why the Company cannot release the worker to
perform the fork-lift duties for which he was selected by the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Workers had been paid lump sums of #500 and #150 as
compensation under the new Works Agreement. Any general
operative who is trained can now operate a fork-lift. There
is no need for a relief fork-lift driver as there are now 18
trained fork-lift drivers. The worker concerned may continue
to receive the 7% differential for performing fork-lift
duties but only on his own shift and when he can be spared
from operating his machine. The new Agreement does not allow
for the easy changing of shifts between workers.
2. The Union never mentioned the issue of a relief
fork-lift driven when the Works Agreement was being
negotiated. There was plenty of time to do so.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submission from the parties and
the additional information supplied by the Company subsquent to
the hearing, recommends that the Company's proposal be accepted
and in addition, because fork-lift drivers received compensation
the Court considers it reasonable that the claimant be offered and
accept a sum of #100.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.