FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SCA/NUTEC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 849/98GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The SCA mill at Naas produces foodstuff for the pig industry. Following a meeting between the parties in July, 1998, the Company informed the Union that because of a severe recession in the pig industry, rationalisation would have to take place. Following proposals from the Company, an agreement was reached on a survival package for the Naas plant. The Union wrote to the Company on the 4th of November, 1998, stating that it accepted the proposals following a ballot.
One issue that had arisen during discussions was the pay rate of 4 workers. As part of the agreement, the 4 workers were re-graded from the Grade C general operator to Grade B, senior operator rate, in return for additional flexibility. On the 5th of November, 1998, the Union wrote to the Company alleging that the 4 workers should have been on the higher rate as and from 6 months from the date they commenced employment. The dates the workers commenced employment are as follows:
Worker A 9th of November, 1995
Worker B 3rd of September, 1997
Worker C 3rd of September , 1997
Worker D 21st of January, 1998.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place on the 8th of January, 1999. The Rights Commissioner's findings and recommendation are as follows:
"I find that the parties entered into an agreement covering the introduction of productivity and flexibility measures. The issue of retrospection was not raised until the ballot on the proposals had been completed. It is obvious that the outcome of the negotiations would have varied considerably had the issue of retrospection been included on the agenda. I have decided that the claim fails".
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th of February, 1999, in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of May, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The 4 workers were informed by the then manager that they were joining the Company at a recruitment rate, and would be moved to the full rate on completion of 6 months' employment.
2. The Union informed the Company that the issue of retrospection would be referred to a Rights Commissioner if it was not addressed locally. The dispute on the rate made it very difficult for the Union to sell the agreed package to the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Three of the 4 workers had started on a special probationary rate and had been moved on to the full Grade C rate on completion of the probationary period. The fourth worker, who had commenced employment in 1995, was also on the Grade C prior to the commencement of negotiations in October, 1998.
2. The 4 workers were re-graded to senior operative level in return for greater flexibility and full training in all aspects of the senior operative role.
3. The issue of retrospection was not raised until the ballot on the proposals had been completed.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the issue of retrospection did not form any part of the negotiations on the agreement in October, 1998, which was accepted by both parties. The Court considers that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Therefore, the appeal is not upheld. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31th May, 1999.______________________
CO'N/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.