Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9661 Case Number: AD9627 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - and - A WORKER;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST44495.
Recommendation:
The Court, having fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submission, upholds the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal
of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
In relation to the above, the Court would suggest that the parties
agree that the claimant reverts to the proper rate with effect
from the date of issue of this decision.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9661 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2796
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST44495.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to October, 1993, the worker held the position of
clerical worker on the day shift in B-block. In October,
1993, the Company replaced the manual clocking system with an
electronic system known as QTAR. As a result, the number of
clerical staff on each shift was reduced. On the day shift,
the number was reduced from one worker per block to one
worker covering the whole site.
The job on day shift was given to the most senior clerical
worker, a member of SIPTU, as per the Company/Union
Agreement. The worker concerned was re-located to another job. The
work was at a lower grade but any loss is covered by a grade
guarantee. The SIPTU worker does a half hour overtime each
day and 4 hours on Saturday. The worker concerned is
claiming that the 6.5 hours overtime worked is proper to her.
She is also claiming that the Company should provide her with
additional work to make up her hours.
The Union first referred the dispute to the Rights
Commissioner at a hearing on 27th June, 1995. The Rights
Commissioner recommended that the worker be left on her old
rate in the hope that the issue would be sorted at some time
in the future. This did not happen and the Union again
referred the dispute to the Rights Commissioner. A second
hearing took place on 22nd November, 1995. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the claimant reverts to the proper
rate for her current posting from the first pay day in
February, 1996."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on
12th February, 1996, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 7th March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is the next most senior person to
the employee on day shift. The 6.5 hours overtime being
done by him is clerical work which is proper to the
worker concerned. She was told that she would not lose
out in any way due to the new clocking system. In fact,
the worker was reduced in grade and also suffered a
financial loss due to the overtime being given to the
other employee.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The work being done on Saturday is stock control. It is
not clerical work and is not related to the new clocking
system. It can only be done at the end of the week.
2. The Company could not justify making up 6.5 hours to 39
hours for the worker on a personal basis. It would be
inefficient and contrary to the most effective running
of the factory. The Company acted in accordance with
the Company/Union Agreement.
DECISION:
The Court, having fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submission, upholds the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal
of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
In relation to the above, the Court would suggest that the parties
agree that the claimant reverts to the proper rate with effect
from the date of issue of this decision.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th March, 1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman