Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94416 Case Number: LCR14702 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
(1) Consolidation of allowance into basic pay (2) Hours of overtime for quality assurance (Q.A.) employees.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submission of the parties,
finds as follows:-
A. CONSOLIDATION OF SUPERVISORY ALLOWANCE.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
B. LOSS OF EARNINGS FOR Q.A. INSPECTORS.
Based on the information before the Court, the Union's
claim is not well founded and is consequently rejected.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94416 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14702
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (1) Consolidation of allowance into basic pay
(2) Hours of overtime for quality assurance (Q.A.)
employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The first dispute concerns a worker who acts as Assistant
Supervisor on the racking line. Her basic rate of pay is #169.22
per week and the Assistant Supervisor's allowance is #17.72 per
week. If the worker does overtime she is paid overtime on the
basic rate of #169.22. The Union wants the Assistant Supervisor's
rate consolidated into the basic rate (a total of #186.94) for the
calculation of overtime pay purposes. The Company is not
agreeable to this.
3. The second dispute concerns four workers who operated as Q.A.
inspectors on an evening shift. Some years ago the Company
decided to operate an evening shift (4.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.). It
was necessary for a Q.A. inspector to work overtime (2 hours per
night) on this shift to train workers in operating the machinery.
4. The Union claims that from 1987 to 1993, 3 of the 4 workers
concerned worked on the evening shift. The fourth worker worked
on the evening shift from 1990. The Company claims the shift
started in 1990. In June, 1993, the Company decided not to work
the evening shift. The Union is seeking compensation for loss of
overtime at the rate of two years of the loss for the four
workers.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on 2nd June 1994. No
agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on
9th August, 1994. A Labour Court hearing took plae on 25th
January, 1995 in Waterford (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. (First Dispute) The worker's duties are ongoing. She
still works as an Assistant Supervisor on overtime but is only
paid at the basic rate. She performs a number of duties as
Assistant Supervisor apart from relieving for breaks and
training new operators.
2. (Second Dispute) The Company made an agreement with the
workers concerned in 1987 regarding working overtime. The
Company's decision to unilaterally break this agreement is
unacceptable. The workers will loose approximately #675 per
year as a result of the loss of overtime. There is little
opportunity for overtime for the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In the past three years, the Company has experienced a
severe downturn in business due to an increasingly competitive
market. The Company introduced a document "Refocusing for
Competitiveness" which required a number of changes to work
practices in order to secure employment for existing workers.
2. (First dispute) The worker who operated as an Assistant
Supervisor was paid an overtime rate on the allowance if she
was required as an Assistant Supervisor. If not required she
was paid overtime on the basic rate. There is no longer a
requirement for an Assistant Supervisor. The Company offered
the worker #800 net or the retention of her allowance for 18
months as compensation. The Union rejected the offer.
3. (Second Dispute) The 4 Q.A. inspectors were employed on
a temporary basis to meet seasonal peaks in demand. In 1993,
it was decided that the evening operators were sufficiently
trained and that the Q.A. inspectors were no longer required.
The 4 workers still do overtime in other areas if required.
Figures show that there has been no loss of overtime earnings
for the 4 workers (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submission of the parties,
finds as follows:-
A. CONSOLIDATION OF SUPERVISORY ALLOWANCE.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
B. LOSS OF EARNINGS FOR Q.A. INSPECTORS.
Based on the information before the Court, the Union's
claim is not well founded and is consequently rejected.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
9th March, 1995 ---------------
C O'N/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED
MR CIARAN O'NEILL, COURT SECRETARY.