Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94714 Case Number: AD9514 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HARRIS CALORIFIC LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST181/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the offer
made to the claimant of Grade F was inclusive of the fork lift
duties.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
In arriving at the above decision the Court is fully cognisant of
the agreements regarding payment of the Fork Lift Allowance. In
the case before the Court the remuneration package offered at the
outset, Scale E+ was inclusive of the fork lift operation payment.
When this was not accepted an improved offer of the top grade F
was made by the Company. The Court considers that this offer was
made on the same terms as the rejected offer i.e. inclusive of the
Fork Lift Allowance. It is clear to the Court that the impact of
changes in the grading structures was not envisaged when the 1984
agreement was reached.
In the circumstances and to avoid disputes for the future the
Court would recommend that the parties review the agreement with a
view to providing for any anomalies which arise.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94714 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1495
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
HARRIS CALORIFIC LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST181/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures oxy acetylene cutting and
welding equipment for export and employs approximately
100 workers. The worker concerned was appointed to the
position of storeman/materials expeditor in 1991 and
placed on the Grade F pay scale (the highest grade
within the Company grade structure in 1991 ranged from A
to F. A special grade T was created in December, 1992).
The Company maintains that in accepting the offer of
Grade F the worker agreed that this would include the
forklift operating allowance. This allowance amounts to
50% of the difference between the worker's grade and the
next highest grade. The Company has not paid the
allowance to the worker since he attained Grade F in
1991. The Union submitted a claim for the restoration
of the allowance. Management rejected the claim.
2. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 7th November,
1994 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation
as follows:-
"I am afraid that I cannot give the claimant the
benefit of the doubt in this case as to do so would
in effect give him an over #20 advantage above his
colleagues who enjoy #5-#8 differentials for
forklift driving.
Accordingly I recommend that his claim fails."
On the 5th December, 1994 the Union appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the
appeal on the 2nd February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker accepted Grade F the question of the
discontinuance of the forklift allowance was not
discussed with Management. The worker did not agree
that the allowance should be incorporated into Grade F.
He has sought the restoration of the allowance since
1992.
2. The Company has always accepted the principle that
forklift duties warrant additional payments irrespective
of the grade rate. The Union rejects Management's
contention that the claimant is paid an all inclusive
rate. This is not possible as forklift duties were
always treated as an "add on".
3. As a result of promotion the worker concerned should not
have had a separate and distinct allowance eliminated.
It is reasonable that the Union seek to maintain the
allowance and, logically in the claimant's case, this
would be 50% of the pay difference between his current
grade-F and the next highest grade-T.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker was appointed to Grade F in 1991
Management clearly stipulated that the rate for this
grade included the forklifting allowance. The worker
was paid the highest possible rate for the job he was
doing and the Company could not pay him beyond Grade F
as there was no higher grade in 1991.
2. The T grade was specifically introduced in December,
1992 to cater for the requirements of the skilled
machine setting grade. The Union agreed, at the time
the special grade was created, that no other cost
increasing claims based on the T grade would be
submitted.
3. The Union's claim that the worker be paid half the
difference between the F and T grades is totally
untenable as it was never intended that forklift
operatives would go beyond Grade F.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the offer
made to the claimant of Grade F was inclusive of the fork lift
duties.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
In arriving at the above decision the Court is fully cognisant of
the agreements regarding payment of the Fork Lift Allowance. In
the case before the Court the remuneration package offered at the
outset, Scale E+ was inclusive of the fork lift operation payment.
When this was not accepted an improved offer of the top grade F
was made by the Company. The Court considers that this offer was
made on the same terms as the rejected offer i.e. inclusive of the
Fork Lift Allowance. It is clear to the Court that the impact of
changes in the grading structures was not envisaged when the 1984
agreement was reached.
In the circumstances and to avoid disputes for the future the
Court would recommend that the parties review the agreement with a
view to providing for any anomalies which arise.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd February, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman