Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95389 Case Number: LCR14914 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL (IBEC) - and - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE. |
Additional service leave.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court does
not recommend that the claim be conceded.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95389 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14914
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL
AND
MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE.
SUBJECT:
1. Additional service leave.
BACKGROUND:
2.1 The Company is located in Mullagh, Kells, County Meath. It
has traded for twenty-three years and employs approximately
450 people. It produces nylon and polyester fibre for the
European and International markets.
2 The background to the dispute involves a concession by the
Company to members of SIPTU/TEEU/AEEU of an extra day's
service leave to employees with eighteen years service. The
Union (MSF) is claiming this extra service day's leave for
its members.
3 The Company has rejected the claim. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held in Navan on 14th February, 1995. As no
agreement was possible, the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 22nd June, 1995 in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 19th September, 1995 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Laboratory staff in Wellman International have been members
of MSF since 1980. Three other unions represent the staff at
the plant; SIPTU, AEU and AEETU. The terms and conditions of
employment for MSF members were set by a Labour Court
recommendation (LCR 11466 refers). The terms included accepting service
holidays instead of service pay. The other unions agreed to
service pay. The Union agreed service leave on the basis of
one day's leave after four years service, rising to a maximum
of five days after nine years service.
2 The agreement between the Company and the other group of
unions has eroded the "differential" which existed between
members of the union and those represented by the other
unions. The Union is claiming restoration of the
"differential".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company cannot agree to the Union's claim for an extra
service day as the workers concerned have the highest level
of service leave in the Company - the same as management.
The agreement with the other unions was a separate issue
which did not relate to the Union's members.
2 The Company's policy of rewarding long service employees in
the process and crafts area is a progressive one and should
not be hindered by repercussive claims of this nature.
3 The claim has all the hallmarks of the traditional
"differential" type claim which was common some years ago.
The Company made its position clear at local level and at
conciliation that it did not consider that the Union had a
legitimate grievance.
4 The claim is a cost increasing one and is therefore outside
the terms of the P.C.W.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court does
not recommend that the claim be conceded.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th September, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.W./A.K. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.