Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95101 Case Number: LCR14761 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not find this dispute is similar to those
referred to by the Union at the hearing.
However, in the light of the circumstances described by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, the Court considers
that there are grounds in this particular case for some
compensation to be paid.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that each person concerned
should have payment of the difference between the average bonus on
the current direct scheme and the old scheme, back-dated six
months from the date of introduction of the new scheme, in full
and final settlement of this dispute.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95101 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14761
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: WATERFORD CRYSTAL
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union that the
Company failed to implement a bonus performance system in
accordance with an Agreement made in June, 1990. The Union
claims that the Company gave a commitment that a "B.S.I."
bonus system would be in place in all areas within 6 months
of the June 1990 Agreement or, where this was not possible, a
related indirect bonus system.
2. The claim concerns 63 workers (30 furnacemen, 28
knockersoffs, 2 general operatives and 3 lehrmen) who are on
direct bonus schemes. These workers have been paid the
direct bonus scheme from varying dates in 1993. The Union's
claim is based on the payment of the difference between the
old bonus scheme and the new system introduced in 1993, to be
backdated to July, 1992.
3. In October, 1994, the Company agreed to apply the
average bonus achieved by other employees on direct bonus to
employees for whom it was not possible to introduce a direct
bonus scheme backdated to July, 1992. The present claim for
those on direct bonus schemes was rejected by the Company.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. Two conciliation conferences took place on 29th
November, 1994, and 1st December, 1994 but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
30th January, 1995, under Section 26(1), Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 5th April,
1995, in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company gave a commitment that the new B.S.I. bonus
scheme would be in place within 6 months of the June, 1990
Agreement. The Company also stated that any loss of earning
arising from the Agreement would be offset by the
introduction of the new B.S.I. system. This did not happen.
2. The workers concerned in the present claim are no
different than the workers who were on average bonus
(indirect) schemes and were compensated in October, 1994.
Higher bonuses were achieved on B.S.I. systems as a result of
a reduction in manning levels with a corresponding increase
in productivity from the reduced numbers. This applies to
the workers concerned on the direct bonus scheme. The
furnacemen had their manning levels reduced from 41 to 34.
The reduced number of workers are expected, in normal time,
to maintain the same productivity and perform duties which
were previously done on overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The June, 1990 Agreement did not state that all workers
would receive increased incentive bonus payments within 6
months. It stated that the bonus scheme would be introduced,
where possible, following a work study programme. It also
involved ongoing co-operation from the workers. All general
operatives, including the workers concerned, received an
increase of #12 per week, effective from 1st February, 1991.
2. Workers receive higher bonus earnings as a result of a
reduction in staffing levels in specific areas and an
increase in output by workers remaining in those areas. The
Company cannot pay bonuses if it does not receive a return.
The workers concerned received increased bonus earnings
relative to their increased productivity from the various
dates in 1993 when the new scheme was introduced. The
Company cannot pay retrospective bonuses for work that was
not done. To do so would increase costs with no return and
would make the Company uncompetitive.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not find this dispute is similar to those
referred to by the Union at the hearing.
However, in the light of the circumstances described by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, the Court considers
that there are grounds in this particular case for some
compensation to be paid.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that each person concerned
should have payment of the difference between the average bonus on
the current direct scheme and the old scheme, back-dated six
months from the date of introduction of the new scheme, in full
and final settlement of this dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th May, 1995 Tom McGrath
C O'N/U.S. _______________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR CIARAN O'NEILL, COURT SECRETARY.