Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93675 Case Number: LCR14352 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FITZPAK LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of back-money to 4 production operatives operating an "Auto-gluer" machine.
Recommendation:
The Court Recommends that the bonus shortfall as a consequence of
the change in rates for the operation of double-wall material
should be paid to the operators of the machine, with effect from
the 1st of January, 1992.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93675 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14352
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
FITZPAK LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of back-money to 4 production
operatives operating an "Auto-gluer" machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures corrugated sheets and boxes and is
based in the Galvone Industrial Estate in Limerick, currently
employing 50 workers. In late 1990, a scheme was implemented
which was designed to provide bonus earnings for workers. Due to
the fact that the timings on the Auto-gluer machine were 'tight',
it was impossible to achieve a reasonable bonus on the machine
during the production of 'double-wall' materials. The Union
notified the Company of the difficulty with the timings but it was
not rectified for approximately two years. The operatives are
seeking compensation of 2.50(years) times the difference between the
bonus previously earned and the bonus now earned. The claim was
rejected by the Company. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 2nd of December, 1993, in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute, in Limerick, on the 9th of February,
1994, the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company took almost 2 years to correctly adjust the
timings. Having brought the matter to the attention of the
Company, the workers should receive compensation for this
undue delay.
2. The claim is not a cost-increasing claim ruled out by
the P.E.S.P. It is a productivity issue that should have
been sorted out by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the inception of the bonus scheme in late 1990,
the Company did not enter into an agreement with the Union or
its members that it would guarantee any earnings arising from
the bonus scheme. Given the volatile nature of this
Company's markets, it simply could not afford to do so. The
Company has little control over reductions in throughput
processed by the Auto-gluer machine and consequently cannot
therefore be held liable for any losses arising from the
bonus scheme. The lack of earnings as alleged by the Union
is due entirely to the reduction of volumes going through the
machine.
2. Arising from representations from the crews, the Company
in all good faith made a gratuity payment of #20.00 per week
to each of the Auto-gluer crew for a period of ten weeks from
end of October to December 1992. Having made this payment
the Company feels that it has more than compensated staff on
this machine for any alleged problems with the bonus scheme.
3. The Company is operating in a serious loss-making
situation and concession of this claim would most definitely
leave this Company exposed to "knock on" relativity claims
from other sections of the Company.
4. Notwithstanding the Company's financial difficulties
over recent years, the Company met its obligations under the
P.E.S.P. and implemented the third phase with effect from
June, 1993. The Union's claim for payment of backmoney on
the Auto-gluer machine is specifically precluded under
Clause 5 of the P.E.S.P. on the basis that it constitutes a
cost increasing claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court Recommends that the bonus shortfall as a consequence of
the change in rates for the operation of double-wall material
should be paid to the operators of the machine, with effect from
the 1st of January, 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th March, 1994. Tom McGrath
M.K./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.