FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH BISCUITS - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION BREAD & FLOOR WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST65/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute before the Court first arose in 1994 when a group of approximately seven "wrapping operators" sought parity of grade with operators in other sections of the Company.
As no agreement was reached between the parties, it was decided to appoint an independent assessor to investigate the claim. The assessor recommended that the seven "wrapping operators" be regraded from grade 3 to grade 5 with effect from 1st February, 1995.
2. However, the Unions rejected the recommendation and the dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner recommended (ST281/95 refers) that retrospective payment apply from the first pay week in September, 1994 to the seven employees in full and final settlement of the claim. The Company accepted the recommendation.
3. It later transpired that a further twenty-five operators wished to be considered for compensation from April, 1994 to the date of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in September, 1995. The Company rejected the claim and stated that is was not prepared to extend the payment outside the original seven workers.
4. Both sides agreed to refer the dispute to a further Rights Commissioner's hearing. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 22nd May, 1996 and recommended as follows:-
"I cannot see how in these circumstances I can possibly help the Unions
in this case. I do realise that in my ratio decidendi on the previous
case I stated that "since they were carrying out the higher rated work for
over a year or more and that the Company was the beneficiary of their
reduced labour cost in the period that it was not unreasonable to
recommend that they should receive the rate from the first pay week in
September 1994.''
Clearly the same argument would apply if this were a legal matter but
it is not, it is an Industrial Relations matter and there is no way this
Rights Commissioner would have backdated the Expert's Award to a
full year if I had known at that time that there were twenty-five others
standing in the wings. In addition the Union Group did not reject the
stated premise which the Company advanced at the time of its formal
acceptance of ST281/95.
Accordingly I recommend that the claim as presented fails for the reasons
advanced above."
The Unions appealed the recommendation (ST65/96) to the Labour Court on the 22nd May, 1996. The Court heard the appeal on the 23rd August, 1996 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company should concede the claim to the twenty-five workers concerned. They ''acted -up'' periodically in the plant before the jobs were regraded.
2. The workers concerned have a valid claim. The Unions are seeking retrospection for this group of workers who have covered the up-graded work at various times at management's request.
3. The cost of conceding the claim would be minimal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The cost of conceding the claim would amount to £14,000 which would have to be passed on to the consumer putting the Company at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis its competitors.
2. It is imperative that costs are contained in order to sustain and develop the business.
3. The Company implemented Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST281/95 in full and final settlement of this claim.
4. The claim of retrospection to a wider group of workers is totally unacceptable to the Company.
DECISION:
The Court has considered all of the views of the parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court takes the view that in progressing the claim for regrading both the Company and the Union and the workers should have been fully aware of the implications for other employees who worked the plant and should have taken this into account in their deliberations.
The Court notes that the Company accepted the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in September, 1995 and that a claim in respect of the workers here concerned was not made until January, 1996.
Given the normal practice in the Company the Court considers that the employees here concerned are deserved of some consideration.
Taking account of all of the circumstances the Court is of the view that these workers should be paid a sum equivalent to 50% of amount due in respect of the time worked on the plant in full and final settlement of the regrading issue.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
4th September, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.