FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BALLOU LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning pay and Union representation.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Ballou Limited is a subsidiary of a private family owned American company. It has operated in Ireland since 1972 manufacturing mechanisms for the costume jewellery industry, and exports its products extensively. It employs forty people and has dealt directly with staff in relation to pay and conditions of service since 1972 without Union representation.
2. The worker concerned in the dispute is a machine operator. She claims that she is performing a higher grade of duty which would normally require the services of a fitter when changing settings on the machine from one operation to another.
3. The Company claims that the duties of a machine operator are as laid down and that changeovers are a normal part of the job role.
4. The Union sought to have the dispute referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation but the Company objected to such an investigation. The dispute was then referred to the Labour Court by the Union under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 26th August, 1996. The Company indicated by letter that it would not be attending the Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has, through her own initiative, acquired the knowledge and skill to do changeovers, which normally require the services of a fitter. She should be paid the appropriate rate for the job.
2. The worker is entitled to a grade increase with no strings attached, from the 1st March, 1996 as part of the normal annual review based on merit and performance. The Company should pay this increment.
3. All employees have the right to Union representation.
4. The Union wants the Company to enter into immediate discussions to seek a resolution to this dispute, including third-party intervention if necessary.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:(as per written submission)
4. 1. The Company deals directly with its workforce in relation to pay and conditions of employment and has done so since 1972. It considers, therefore, that Union representation is unnecessary and not in the best interest of its employees.
2. Pay rates in the Company are above those awarded under National Agreements. Also, merit increases are also provided.
3. The Company also provides other benefits such as a non-contributory pension scheme, sickness benefit, personal training and many other benefits.
4. Only one employee wants to join a Union out of a total of forty workers.
5. The worker concerned is seeking pay and status which is not in line with her job requirements, training or current level of ability. Changeovers are part of a machine operator's duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the claimant in her oral and written submissions, together with the correspondence provided by the Company. The Company chose not to attend the hearing. The Court finds from the information provided that there is an issue which needs to be addressed.
The approach which has been adopted by the Company to date is not conducive to maintaining a good industrial relations climate.
Given all of the circumstances the Court recommends that the parties discuss the issue in dispute and seek a basis to resolve the matter.
In these discussions the claimant should be permitted to be accompanied by the representative of her choice. This the Court finds would not compromise any views the Company may have regarding Union recognition given that the matter in dispute is affecting an individual worker. Further the Union representative has indicated to the Court that it is not his intention to use this matter as a basis for seeking Union recognition.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
12th Septembert, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.