FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH SUGAR PLC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1) DDS Operators back pay, (2) Early retirement, (3) Loss of overtime earnings for Heavy Gang.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1994, the Company entered into a review of its grading structure with the Union in relation to general operatives. The review was carried out by the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) which recommended a 5-grade structure in place of the existing 8-grade structure. The parties agreed in relation to the IPC recommendation, but failed to agree on the placing of values on the different grades. The matter was referred to the Labour Court and in May, 1997 the Court issued LCR15524 in which it recommended new rates of pay for the workers concerned.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on behalf of 17 workers concerning (1) DDS Operators back payment, (2) Early retirement and (3) Loss of overtime earnings for the Heavy Gang. The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of July, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of September, 1998.
Back pay for DDS Operators
DDS Operatives are one of a number of categories of production operative who benefited from retrospection under the new grading structure. The Company has paid retrospection back to 1994. The Union is seeking payment for the period 1993/1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1993, management acknowledged the changes in the workers' jobs and paid a once off lump-sum for the period 1992/1993.
2. The payments arising from the IPC review were retrospective to 1994. This leaves the workers without payment for 1993/1994.
3. The Union on a number of occasions has attempted to convey to the Company the sense of grievance felt by the workers at management's refusal to acknowledge that no payment was made for 1993/1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The IPC carried out a review during the 1994/1995 campaign and as such the points and grades subsequently awarded relate to duties and responsibility carried out during that period, not prior to it. There is no logic in applying retrospection to 1993.
2. All other retrospection payments arising form this review go back to 1994.
3. The DDS operators received lump sum payments for changes in their jobs in 1993 along with several other groups of employees.
4. DDS operators have already received retrospective payments ranging form £3,485 to £7,314.
5. Concession of this claim could lead to knock-on claims from other operators who similarly got increases in 1993/1994.
Early retirement
In September, 1997, the Union raised the issue of early retirement in relation to six workers employed in Mallow. It sought an assurance that the workers concerned would be allowed leave on early retirement on enhanced terms on reaching the age of 60. The Union argues that when discussions took place in 1996, assurances were given that the workers would be accommodated.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. During discussions in Mallow in 1996, on a range of issues, the question of staff approaching the age of 60 having access to early retirement was raised. Management gave assurances that the workers concerned would be accommodated between 1996 and 2001. The workers were in addition to eleven other workers who formed part of the Company/Union agreement in 1995. The Company is now reneging on that commitment.
2. Management's refusal to accommodate the workers is causing serious problems in Mallow. Those involved had an expectation of early retirement, which in some cases would be influenced by indifferent health, while in others the nature of the work is not compatible with older workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The normal retirement date for employees of the Company is 65 years of age. At no stage did the Company give an assurance that employees in Mallow could automatically retire on an enhanced package when they reached the age of 60. It could not be expected to pay an enhanced package to employees 60 years of age and then recruit other employees to replace them.
2. Because of events in 1997, the Company did not carry out certain capital work envisaged in 1995 and, therefore, certain redundancies did not arise.
3. The Company has achieved the number of reductions as set out to the Union in 1994. Having reviewed its current situation with regard to all operations it would not be possible to release any further employees without them being replaced on a full-time basis.
4. The Company is undertaking a detailed analysis of its current operations. It will be bench marking these with a number of its competitors and from this exercise, it could and should be able to carry out a number of its operations with reduced manning levels. However, in order to make this possible, there would have to be fundamental change in how it will carry out its day to day business in terms of work practices, flexibility, and co-operation and this would also require extensive capital expenditure. This review is ongoing and the Company does not expect to complete this exercise until March/April next year.
Loss of overtime earnings
The claim on behalf of two workers for compensation for the loss of overtime earnings was first submitted in 1994. The Union argues that for a number of years prior to 1994 the workers were in receipt of substantial overtime earnings for approximately 15 weeks during the campaign season.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. In the early 1990s the overtime of both workers was reduced by 20 hours per week during the campaign season. This equates to 300 hours and a significant drop in earnings. These earnings were enjoyed for many years and the workers should be compensated for the loss. There is a formula of two and one half year's loss established in the Company.
2. Management's attempt to offset the loss against the workers' increased earnings outside of the campaign season is unacceptable to the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Overtime worked in the off-season is dependent on the capital expenditure programme and this varies from year to year.
2. Overtime working in campaigns depends on the carry-over of capital work from the off-season and plant breakdowns during the campaign. The Company does not guarantee campaign lengths or the level of overtime to be worked.
3. Concession of this claim could lead to knock-on claims from other employees whose earnings fluctuate from year to year.
4. During 1995/1996/1997 various figures have been given to the Union which show that no loss of earnings occurred. The Company maintains that the earnings of the workers in the Heavy Gang have been maintained and there is no basis for compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds as follows on the three issues in dispute:-
(1)DDS Operations Back Pay
Retrospection payments have by agreement been paid from 1994. The Court finds no specific reason for going back beyond 1994, for this group.
(2)Early Retirement
The Court accepts that the original discussions centred on capital investment and that the Company should not be expected to let employees take retirement if it has to recruit to replace the retirees.
However, the Court cannot understand why the offer made by the Union to allow four people to retire as they reach the age and to absorb their work at no cost increase has been rejected by the Company.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties enter into discussions on this proposal with a view to accommodating some employees.
(3)Heavy Gang Claim
No evidence was produced to substantiate the argument that the employees concerned had in fact worked 84 hours during the campaign.
There is evidence that no actual loss has taken place and the Court,
therefore, finds that there is no basis for compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th October, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.