FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHN RONAN AND SONS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1) Pay increase for process operators.
(2) Overtime for hide yard men.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which was established in 1950, processes cattle hide and sheepskin for the export market. It employs a workforce of 110 permanent employees and a number of casual employees as required.
In 1997 negotiations took place on a range of issues which were in dispute. Two conciliation conferences were held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 27th of August, 1997, and the 21st of April, 1998. A comprehensive agreement was reached on most of the issues. It was agreed to refer the outstanding two issues above to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Clonmel, Co. Tipperary, on the 30th of September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Pay increase for process operators:- The Union's claim, on behalf of four shift processors, is to have the average standard factory bonus of £1.20 per hour (i.e., £46.80 per week) added to basic pay and shift premium instead of the current processors' rate. This would increase pay by approximately £20.00 per week. The workers concerned have a very high level of skill and expertise in relation to their jobs. All other employees, including other processors, receive the standard factory bonus or, indeed, a higher one (details supplied to the Court).
2. Overtime for hide yard men:- Approximately fifteen people work in the hide yard on Saturday mornings from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.. Six of these workers are paid double time from 6.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. following a local agreement which was reached almost 20 years ago. This has resulted in feelings of frustration for the more recently recruited workers who work side by side with the original workers, but are paid at single time. The claim is, therefore, for equality and parity among all workers in the hide yard.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Pay increase for process operators:- The Union's claim is for pay parity with processors who were employed by the Company in a different department, at a different location, producing different products. This department is now closed. A different system of payments has existed in these departments for approximately 25 years and the Company does not accept that the same rate should now apply.
2. Overtime for hide yard men:- The agreement reached in 1980 was red-circled to 18 permanent employees in the hide yard. They received a once-off payment of £125, overtime on Monday if required, and double time from 6.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. on Saturday as an incentive to change their working week from Monday - Friday to Tuesday - Saturday. Working from 6.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. on Saturday does not constitute overtime work as these hours form part of the normal working day. Payment of double time, therefore, is not merited.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, recommends as follows on the two issues before it:-
(1)Pay increase for process operators
The Court does not recommend that the payment system for process operators be changed at this time.
It may be that an opportunity to review this position might arise in the future if the work is being reorganised.
(2)Overtime for hide yard men
The Court does not accept that an agreement on red-circling for a number of people at a particular time should justify the payment of the same rate to others. However, the Court accepts that in this case it can cause friction where people are working closely together.
The Court, therefore, while rejecting the Union claim, recommends that the Company buy out the red-circling arrangement, if agreement can be reached.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd October, 1998______________________
D.G./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.