FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : D O'SULLIVAN AND COMPANY (CORK) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST 460/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of household and industrial mops. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment as an assistant to the operator of the mop machine in 1983. She was promoted to machinist in October, 1984. The worker is paid by a piece rate system. Following a change in the method of production and a retiming of the employee's work, the Union claimed that despite an increase in productivity the worker sustained a loss of earnings. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 1st April 1996 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the claimant is allowed and the Company concedes without precedent a learner curve of earnings as follows:
She should receive for a period of 4 weeks the difference between 6p per dozen and 3.3p per dozen which was the old price. This difference should then be reduced by 10% each succeeding week until she has reached the new figure of 3.3p per dozen".
On the 8th May, 1996 the Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on the 28th November, 1996.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company took into account the effect of the changes affecting the worker concerned. Full consultation took place between the parties. The work under both one and two-person operations was subject to work study and targets were agreed with the Union. Piece rates for one and two person operation were agreed.
2. The only difference between one and two person operations is that some of the work previously performed by the claimant is now performed by the second operator and therefore the claimant was fully conversant with the overall system of operation.
3. While the Rights Commissioner recommended a learner curve of earnings of 13 weeks, the Company had already recognised that the claimant should be given every opportunity to perform under two person operation and the claimant was paid average weekly wages applicable to one person operation while working the two person operation from June to May, 1995 (21 weeks).
4. The Company has been extremely fair in meeting the concerns of the worker and contends that her lower earnings are attributable to, a combination of the tighter control in recording of direct production time, the level of effort she gives to the operation, and her lack of commitment due to her dissatisfaction with the two person operation.
UNION'S ARGUMENT'S:
4. 1. When the worker was promoted in October, 1984 she had the responsibility of doing the double job of operator and assistant without an increase in salary. She took on extra duties and increased her production (details to the Court).
2. The Union is not objecting to production targets, however it is not satisfied with the payment structures operated by the Company. Despite an increase of over 200 dozen mops per week, the worker's earnings are reduced by £25.30 per week and she now earns less than in 1993.
3. The previous rate of pay for the worker was 6p per dozen but the Company reduced this to 3p per dozen. The worker concerned, on the basis of her performance, should be earning significantly more per week than she currently earns.
4. The Company recently purchased a Dublin brush manufacturing Company which operates a basic (£152.26) plus bonus system as opposed to the price rate operating in this Company. If the worker was paid this basic and produced 100% performance her weekly wage would exceed £200 for her work schedule and great effort. However as the Company refuses to concede that at 3p the price per dozen mops is less than what it should be, the earnings of the worker are between £25 - £30 per week less.
DECISION:
Having considered all the information before it the Court finds that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is not unreasonable in this case.
The Court therefore upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the Company appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
9th January, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.