Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94243 Case Number: LCR14553 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: YOUGHAL CARPETS (YARNS) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
(i) Replacement of staff who are absent on leave; (ii) Bonus payments.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that taking into account all the circumstances
surrounding both claims, they should not succeed.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94243 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14553
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
YOUGHAL CARPETS (YARNS) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (i) Replacement of staff who are absent on leave; (ii) Bonus
payments.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of woollen spun
yarn. Eighty percent of output is exported to the UK and
European markets. It employs 356 workers.
In late 1993, a major rationalisation programme took place
involving the loss of 109 jobs, equivalent to 25% of the
workforce. In December, 1993, the Labour Court issued LCR
No. 14283 which recommended two redundancies in the clerical
section.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on
behalf of six clerical workers, regarding the replacement of
staff absent on annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave
etc., and for the inclusion of the workers in the bonus
scheme. Local level discussions failed to resolve the issues
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 25th
April, 1994. As no agreement was reached the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on 25th April, 1994. A Labour Court hearing took
place in Cork on 13th July, 1994.
REPLACEMENT OF STAFF ABSENT ON LEAVE
3. The Union is seeking to have permanent staff replaced while
absent from work on leave. The Union's claim relates to two
periods of maternity leave which occurred in 1992, and 1993,
which the Union claims resulted in substantial savings to the
Company. The Union is seeking compensation for the
additional work undertaken by the workers during these
periods.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have co-operated fully with
management during periods when colleagues were absent
from work by undertaking additional duties and
responsibilities. In the circumstances compensation
payments amounting to 50% of the Company's savings to
the workers is justified.
2. The existing complement of six workers in the clerical
section have co-operated in every way to facilitate the
on-going operation within the Company. Any reduction in
this number creates enormous difficulties and
unacceptable pressure for staff performing their duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has operated a policy for many years of
non-replacement of absent staff and management's right
to decide if and when replacement is necessary must be
preserved.
2. During the absence in question management decided that
it was not necessary to replace staff. During the
periods of absence work was prioritised to ensure that
all essential work was carried out.
3. Concession of the claim would have knock-on effects
throughout the plant. It would also have the effect of
determining manning levels.
4. The Company has never conceded such a claim for any
section. Concession of this claim would create a
precedent which would result in relativity claims from
the remaining 346 employees.
BONUS PAYMENTS
4. In October, 1993, the Labour Court issued LCR No. 14211 which
recommended the translation of an existing bonus scheme for
production workers into an annual payment of #150. Clerical
workers were not part of that bonus scheme. Subsequently in
direct discussion between the parties the payment was
increased to #225. The Union claims that the #225 should be
paid to the clerical workers in return for on-going
co-operation. The Company rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers in the clerical/administration section have
co-operated fully with management over the years by
agreeing to voluntary redundancies, re-organisation and
additional work responsibilities. In late 1993, further
rationalisation took place which involved the workers
concerned in further flexibility and co-operation. In
the circumstances the inclusion of the workers in the
bonus payment is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Labour Court Recommendation No. 14211 referred to
production workers only. It is the Company's
understanding that the Court made the recommendation in
the interests of good industrial relations and to enable
the Company to complete its re-organisation programme as
quickly as possible.
2. The Company recognises the contribution of the clerical
section to the re-organisation programme but concession
of this claim could have knock-on effects throughout the
plant, a situation that is unacceptable, particularly as
the Company remains in a loss making situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that taking into account all the circumstances
surrounding both claims, they should not succeed.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th September, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.