Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92778 Case Number: AD9316 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SCHOEPP VELOURS IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner Recommendation (CW442/92) concerning the withdrawal of a chargehand's rate from a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the views of the parties does not find
grounds to amend the Rights Commissioners Recommendations. The
Court urges the parties to negotiate the lump sum compensation in
accordance with the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92778 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1693
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SCHOEPP VELOURS IRELAND LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner Recommendation
(CW442/92) concerning the withdrawal of a chargehand's rate from a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company commenced operations in 1979 and employs 256
people in its Wexford plant. A decision was taken to
rationalise production due to poor trading which resulted in
36 redundancies in April, 1992. As a result of this, the
number of Grade 5 positions on the worker's machine was
reduced from 3 to 2 and he was offered continuing employment
in another position within the department under the same
terms and conditions, but at a lower rate.
2. The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner and a
hearing was held on the 6th November, 1992. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation which was issued on the 16th
November, 1992 recommended:
"that the Union accepts that a lump sum compensation is
appropriate to the worker for the loss of the
differential and that the Company accepts that he is
maintained on the rate until 27th November pending
negotiations on a cessation".
(The workers name was mentioned in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
3. The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
on the 16th December, 1992 and the Labour Court investigated
the matter on the 19th January, 1993 in Wexford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The position in the Company has always been that workers
hold on to their rate of pay when transferred.
2. When the worker was previously taken off his machine and
put working as an assistant to another chargehand, he did not
lose his rate of pay.
3. A serious precedent would be established if compensation
was paid rather than holding a rate.
4. A pay rate should not be treated the same as an
allowance or shift premium where compensation is an
acceptable formula.
5. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation will create
immediate problems in terms of the agreement to flexibility
and would effect workers pay and conditions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since September, trading has become much more difficult
as 80-85% of Company production is exported to the U.K.
2. Where loss of earnings as a result of re-organisation
occurred in the past existing rates were maintained for 18
weeks. In this case the worker received an extra 4 weeks to
cover holidays which occurred during this period.
3. The principle of paying employees on the same job the
same rate is essential. To do otherwise can cause
dissatisfaction and bad feeling amongst colleagues.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the views of the parties does not find
grounds to amend the Rights Commissioners Recommendations. The
Court urges the parties to negotiate the lump sum compensation in
accordance with the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd March, 1993 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. ____________________________________
Deputy Chairman.