Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94443 Case Number: AD9473 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner Recommendation No. ST31/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, finds that the
compensation terms awarded by the Rights Commissioner were
reasonable given all the circumstances of the case.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioners recommendation and
rejects the appeal of the Union.
This is the decision of the Court.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94443 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7394
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AND THE AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner Recommendation No.
ST31/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute refers to a claim by the worker for compensation
for loss of earnings due to the non availability of the
incentive scheme.
The Company operates an incentive scheme which rewards
production above 100% PEI. Workers were issued with a
standard, (usually by the Industrial Engineering Department,
(I.E.D.), against which their performance was measured.
Workers who questioned the validity of the standard could
have it reviewed. If found to be incorrect, a new standard
would be issued.
The worker concerned was allocated a machine which did single
and double-stroke work. The worker claims that, due to the
double-stroke work, the machine could not run at full pace if
quality was to be maintained. Because of this, he was unable
to earn any incentive bonus.
The worker informed the I.E.D. of the problem and requested a
review. No review took place. The matter was raised with
local management and the I.E.D. was instructed to undertake a
special review (Stage 4 hearing) under the Company's
grievance procedure in August, 1991. This review, also, did
not take place. The worker was moved off the machine in May,
1993.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 22nd June, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation follows:-
"Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Union has
established a fair case in the matter. The question of
redress is not an easy matter to address given the
amount of time which has elapsed since it was first
raised by the claimant. Compensation of #4,000, given
the Company's parlous financial and trading positions,
and the fact that, as a consequence, 166 fellow workers
have been laid off, is really not on in the
circumstances.
In all the circumstances, I recommend that the claimant
receives #500 compensation at annual holiday time and
#500 at Christmas 1994 in full and final settlement of
all his claims.
I further recommend that, in future, all requested
reviews take place within a reasonable time frame,
without the invocation of the grievance procedure to
effect such review, as happened in this case."
The recommendation was appealed by the Unions to the Labour
Court on 17th August, 1994 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 17th October, 1994, (the earliest date suitable to
the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not issue a standard based on achievable
targets. As a result, the worker did not earn an
incentive bonus.
2. For one continuous six week period the double-stroke
work was taken off the worker's machine. As a result he
was able to produce above 100% PEI and earn an incentive
bonus. When the double-stroke was returned to the
machine the worker's incentive bonus returned to nil.
3. The I.E.D. failed to review the worker's standard
despite requests to do so.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Although a review did not take place after the Stage 4
hearing in August, 1991, a detailed study of the machine
took place in November, 1990. The worker achieved 100%
on the first study day and 99% on the second day.
Another study took place after the Stage 4 hearing. It
did not show that a problem existed. Therefore, there
was no need for a reassessment.
2. The worker earned an incentive bonus for a six weeks
period in which he recorded downtime. He did not have a
problem with downtime apart from that time.
3. Workers who are experiencing difficulties with their
machine are meant to log them. The worker concerned did
not do so. The issue raised at the Stage 4 hearing was
of a quality problem. The worker was to contact his
superior if he had a problem with quality. He did not
do so for two years.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, finds that the
compensation terms awarded by the Rights Commissioner were
reasonable given all the circumstances of the case.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioners recommendation and
rejects the appeal of the Union.
This is the decision of the Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th November, 1994 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman