Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93180 Case Number: LCR14153 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: GOLDENVALE PLC. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the worker's remuneration following the automation of the Company's weighbridge.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking
into account the level of earnings which the claimant has enjoyed
heretofore, the Court recommends that the Company agree in this
exceptional case to maintain his level of earnings in his new
position at #25,000 per annum. Henceforth that rate should
increase in accordance with negotiated terms and be personal to
the claimant.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93180 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14153
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: GOLDENVALE PLC.
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the worker's remuneration following the
automation of the Company's weighbridge.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed with the Company for 25 years as
a Weighbridge Operator. Following the retirement of one operator
in early 1992, the Company decided to automate the weighbridge.
In order to avoid the redundancy of the remaining operator, the
Company and Union entered into negotiations and agreed on a new
position for him. However agreement was not reached on the
question of his salary and earnings. The worker's earnings had
amounted to #21,992 in 1990, #25,546 in 1991 and #28,293 in 1992.
During 1991 and 1992, it was required that the worker work
extended overtime hours because a seasonal worker who had been
re-deployed to the cheese factory was not replaced on the
weighbridge. The Company offered the worker a set of
'attendances', including overtime, which would enable him to earn
approximately #23,500 per annum. The Company also indicated its
willingness to discuss the worker's future loss of earnings
compared with his 1990 earnings.
The Union is claiming a rate of pay of #247.20 per week basic,
plus shift premium, with a guaranteed excess hours arrangement,
amounting to earnings of #33,625 per annum.
The Union rejected the salary offered by the Company. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on the 4th of February, 1993 at which
agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 18th March, 1993 in accordance with Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 14th of July, 1993 (the earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has adopted a positive approach to the
introduction of the automated weighbridge although it will
mean the elimination of the position he held for 25 years.
The Company emphasised to the worker that the new position
being offered was effectively a promotion which would require
his involvement in a number of different areas, i.e. manual
work, clerical work, laboratory work and training. Given the
nature and importance of the new position, as described by the
Company, it is reasonable to expect that it would provide the
worker with the opportunity to improve his present level of
earnings.
2. The worker's earnings have increased significantly over
the past 2-3 years. Given the recent rapid development of the
Company, and the trend of the worker's earnings, he should
have the opportunity to earn in the region of #30,000 per
annum. Accordingly, the claim for a rate of pay of #33,625 is
justified, based on projected earnings of #30,000 per annum
and the placing of the worker on the maximum point 6 of the
laboratory wage scale, which would increase his basic weekly
pay from #187.50 to #247.20. The laboratory rate of pay can
be justified for the worker as his duties will include
laboratory work and he will spend much time in the central
laboratory. All workers assigned to the Unit to which he is
being assigned are on the laboratory scale.
3. The installation of the automated weighbridge will result
in significant savings for the Company. Annual savings in
employee costs will amount to approximately #50,000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. While the worker's claim has a high degree of invalidity
under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, the
Company has adopted a flexible approach towards resolution of
the problem. The package deal offered (details supplied to
the Court) is generous in view of the fact that there is no
need for any of the worker's new duties to be performed on an
overtime basis. The package deal was developed based on 1990
earnings as his earnings from 1991 were inflated by
exceptional factors which gave the worker non-recurring
overtime opportunities, as follows:
- In 1991 the seasonal weighbridge operator secured
permanent employment in the Butter Factory just
before he was due to commence his seasonal work on
the weighbridge. Arising from this, the worker was
granted extended overtime until a new operator was
adequately trained.
- In the off-season that followed the concept of an
automated weighbridge system was planned and
approved.
- An alternative and permanent position in the Cheese
Department was allocated to the seasonal operator.
Consequent to these developments in 1992, the worker
once again was granted extended overtime for the
season, which substantially increased his gross
earnings.
2. The restructured work in the worker's new position does
not incorporate the technical testing or analysis involved
with Laboratory work (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking
into account the level of earnings which the claimant has enjoyed
heretofore, the Court recommends that the Company agree in this
exceptional case to maintain his level of earnings in his new
position at #25,000 per annum. Henceforth that rate should
increase in accordance with negotiated terms and be personal to
the claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
-----------
21st July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.