Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93294 Case Number: LCR14145 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Disputes concerning: (a) change to non-cash method of payment (b) continuation of plus-payments.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the background to the payment of "plus payments" to the four
casual employees concerned in this dispute, the Court recommends
that the Company offer and the Union accept a payment of #300 per
person as compensation for loss of their permanent plus-payment.
They should thereafter enjoy the same plus payment as the other
casual employees.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93294 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14145
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Disputes concerning:
(a) change to non-cash method of payment
(b) continuation of plus-payments.
BACKGROUND:
(a) Change to non-cash methods
2. 1. This issue was referred back to the Labour Relations
Commission.
(b) Continuation of Plus-Payments
2. As part of a rationalisation programme in the Company a
reduction in the permanent manning level from 54 to 50 was
agreed in 1990. Until other elements of the programme were
finalised the new manning level could not operate and as an
interim arrangement it was agreed that 4 casual workers would
replace 4 permanent workers who were allowed to take early
retirement.
3. A bonus plus-payment scheme operates within the Company
whereby a lump sum is made available for division between the
total group of workers. Payments are made twice yearly, at
Summer and at Christmas and there are different levels of
plus-payments for both permanent and casual workers. While
the interim arrangement operated the 4 casual workers shared
in the permanent workers' pool.
4. All elements of the rationalisation programme (Production
Development Plan) were in place by September, 1992 and the
Company ended the permanent workers' plus-payment levels to
the 4 casual workers. The Union claimed that the 4 workers
should continue to receive the payments as the workers were
paid as part of a separate arrangement. The Company rejected
the claim.
5. No progress was possible at local negotiations and the
claim was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 12th March, 1993. The
parties maintained their respective positions and the claim
was referred to the Labour Court on 6th May, 1993 under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 1st July, 1993, (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. 4 permanent positions became vacant in June, 1990. In the
normal course, these positions would have been filled by
offering the vacancies to the casual workers with the longest
service. The Company refused to fill the vacancies on a
permanent basis. This was agreed by the Union in return for
the 4 casual workers receiving the same twice yearly
plus-payments as the permanent workforce. This was confirmed
by a Company memo of 27th June, 1990 (details supplied).
2. The casual workers gave up their rights to permanent
employment in exchange for the plus-payments. The workers
have between 15 and 17 years' service with the Company. The
retraction by the Company of the plus-payments is not covered
under the Production Development Plan Agreement. There is a
formula in the Agreement to allow for a 3 year buy-out of
payments such as these. The formula was not used in this
case. The Union is seeking the restoration of the
plus-payments as originally agreed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 4 casual workers who filled gaps in the "interim
period" received both the normal rates of pay and the
plus-payments of the early retirees whom they replaced.
Following the Agreement of September, 1992, the number of job
stations were reduced and the need for the 4 casual workers
reverted to holiday and sickness cover etc. There was no
longer justification for the casual workers to retain the
plus-payments for jobs eliminated.
2. The Union is seeking to retain part of the basic
conditions of workers who have left the Company. It is
unacceptable to the Company that any part of the remuneration
of redundant workers should be maintained, particularly since
the redundancies occurred as part of a cost reduction
programme. The Company is asking the Court to recommend that
the remuneration of redundant workers should cease with them
and that the 4 casual workers should be treated no more
favourably than other casual workers employed by the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the background to the payment of "plus payments" to the four
casual employees concerned in this dispute, the Court recommends
that the Company offer and the Union accept a payment of #300 per
person as compensation for loss of their permanent plus-payment.
They should thereafter enjoy the same plus payment as the other
casual employees.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
22nd July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.