Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95678 Case Number: AD969 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DELPHI PACKARD ELECTRIC SYSTEMS (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - A WORKER;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC359/95.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having fully considered all of the views expressed
by the parties in their oral and written submissions, finds the
Company, in carrying out the restructuring, failed to give
consideration to the impact of the changes being made on the
incentive payments being made to the claimant.
Accordingly, the Court decides the employee concerned should be
compensated to the value of 1/3 of the average bonus earned on the
two lines.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95678 APPEAL DECISION NO AD996
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DELPHI PACKARD ELECTRIC SYSTEMS
(Represented by The Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
and
A WORKER
Represented By Amalgamated Transport and General Workers' Union
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC359/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is employed as a service operator, which involves
bringing materials to the assembly line for manufacturing.
Normally 2 service operators assist each assembly line. In
November, 1995, the Company decided to restructure its operation.
Part of the restructuring involved using 3 service operators for 2
assembly lines. The worker concerned was the service operator who
assisted on both assembly lines, approximately 50% of the time on
each line.
The Company operates an incentive scheme for service operators.
The payment made to the operators is based on the performance of
the assembly line to which they are attached. The worker concerned
remained "coded" to his original line for incentive purposes. For
a period of time the worker received no incentive due to the
performance of the assembly line. He requested of the Company that
the payments made to the 3 service operators, including himself, be
totalled and divided by three. The Company rejected this request.
The Union is claiming 8 days' paid leave as compensation for loss
of incentive.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a hearing
took place on 9th October, 1995. The Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is as follows:-
"In the light of the above my recommendation is that the
employer did not act unfairly in the matter and
therefore the claim must fail.
However, in order to avoid a repetition of the situation
in the future the employer I believe should introduce
discussions between the Trade Unions and itself with a
view to coming to a workable arrangement in the event of
a repetition of this situation in the future."
The Unions appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on 16th
November, 1995, in accordance with Section 13(9), Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25th
January, 1996.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company accepted that the new arrangements, with 3
workers assigned to 2 assembly lines, would cause
problems with the incentive bonus. It made no attempt to
resolve the issue.
2. The worker's suggestion to the Company - dividing the
total incentive bonus between the 3 general operatives -
was reasonable and would have solved the problem. There
would have been no extra cost to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was treated no differently than any other
service operator. The worker is paid incentive as per
the regulations of the scheme. It would not make sense
to treat the 3 workers as a separate unit.
2. The 3 workers could have arranged to divide the incentive
bonus between themselves if they so wished. This was the
only issue in dispute as a result of the Company's
restructuring.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having fully considered all of the views expressed
by the parties in their oral and written submissions, finds the
Company, in carrying out the restructuring, failed to give
consideration to the impact of the changes being made on the
incentive payments being made to the claimant.
Accordingly, the Court decides the employee concerned should be
compensated to the value of 1/3 of the average bonus earned on the
two lines.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
19th February, 1996 ---------------
C O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman