Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92673 Case Number: AD9312 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TIME PACKAGING - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST8/92 concerning a return to payment of wages by cash.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the five claimants had exercised their right
under the 1985 Agreement to revert to payment by cash at the time
the 1991 Agreement was being discussed.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation that they alone are entitled to opt out of the 1991
Agreement in respect of the clause requiring payment by cheque on
credit transfer.
The Court therefore rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92673 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1293
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TIME PACKAGING
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST8/92
concerning a return to payment of wages by cash.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a subsidiary of Smurfit Ireland Limited and
produces corrugated boxes for the home market. It employs 32
workers. In 1985, the Company and the Union agreed a system
of cashless pay for the workers. The Agreement provided for
the following:
(a) #75 to be paid to each affected worker.
(b) An option for the workers to revert to payment by
cash subject to one month's notice and repayment of
the #75.
2. In 1991, the Company and the Union entered into a new
Work's Agreement. The Agreement stated inter-alia that it
superseded all previous agreements and in Clause 19 that
payment would be made by cheque or credit transfer. The Union
claims that the workers never accepted Clause 19 and that some
workers required payment by cash under the terms of the 1985
agreement.
3. The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner's
Service under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Rights Commissioner's investigations took place on
15th January and 27th July, 1992. The recommendation as
follows issued on 14th October, 1992.
"I am satisfied in the absence of testimony in any shape
or form from the previous C.E.O. that an agreement was
entered into which allowed the claimants opt out under
the terms of the 1985 Agreement.
Accordingly they alone are entitled to opt out of the
1991 Agreement in respect of the Clause requiring
payment by cheque or credit transfer and I so
recommend".
4. The recommendation was appealed by the Company by letter
dated 28th October, 1992. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 21st January, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union referred the case to the Rights Commissioner to
test the legality of Section 19 of the new Work's Agreement.
The new Agreement was accepted subject to the establishment of
the legality of Section 19. The Rights Commissioner referred
in his findings to the absence of testimony from the Company's
former Chief Executive. The Company's case was presented by
its former Chief Executive at the Rights Commissioner's first
investigation (15th January, 1992).
2. Cashless pay was agreed by the workers with the acceptance
of the new Work's Agreement. This acceptance was only subject
to the legality of Section 19 of the Agreement. The Rights
Commissioner did not address the issue which was before him.
In the light of the new Agreement, it was immaterial that some
workers had applied to be paid by cash under the terms of the
1985 Agreement. The Company on the signing of the new
Agreement made significant increases in the workers' pay.
This increase in pay is a cost to the Company and is dependant
on the benefits of the Agreement materialing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An important part of the 1985 Agreement on cashless pay
was the option for the workers to revert to payment by cash.
The new Work's Agreement was negotiated and agreed in draft
form at speed because of the need to install new equipment.
The Company was advised that Section 19 was unacceptable and
that the Union would be advising it of the names of workers
who wished to revert to payment by cash. The Company refused
to abide by the terms of the 1985 Agreement and accordingly
the parties were in dispute.
2. The matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner and
over 2 investigations, he gave consideration to the respective
positions of the parties. The Company has always been aware
of the Union's position on Section 19 of the new Agreement.
The Union is prepared to accept the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation which was issued following an exhaustive
investigation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the five claimants had exercised their right
under the 1985 Agreement to revert to payment by cash at the time
the 1991 Agreement was being discussed.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation that they alone are entitled to opt out of the 1991
Agreement in respect of the clause requiring payment by cheque on
credit transfer.
The Court therefore rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
23rd February, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.