FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH CABLE & WIRE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against the Rights Commissioner's recommendation IR291/98.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1995, the worker concerned was employed in the scrap area of the factory. Following rationalisation in 1995, the position of oil/greasing was made redundant and the worker concerned was asked to take up these duties. This was outlined in a letter from the Company dated the 16th of March, 1995. The letter also stated that the worker would take up duties in the production stores area in 1996 when they became available. His rate of pay would increase to £228 per week.
The Union's case is that the worker was to get a pay increase for the oil/greasing duties, but would get a further increase when he took up duties in the production stores area. The Company maintains that the increased pay agreed (£228 per week) would cover both extra duties.
The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place on the 26th of August, 1998. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is as follows:
"I recommend that the Union and the worker accept the Company decision in this instance."
(The worker was named in the above recommendation.)
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th of October, 1998, in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of April, 1998, in Mullingar, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. It was discussed with management that in the event of the worker taking up production stores duties, there would be further negotiations with regard to a future increase.
2. The worker signed the document of March, 1995 in good faith. He realised the difficulties that the Company was experiencing, and was agreeable to help out by taking up extra duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The document signed by the worker on the 16th of March, 1995, clearly states that the worker would be taking on duties in oil/greasing and the production stores. The agreed rate of pay for the position was to increase to £228 per week. The production stores duties would not arise until April, 1996.
2. The Union and the worker both knew what the agreement involved. They cannot now seek extra payment.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties in this appeal, the Court finds no basis on which it should interfere with the conclusions and recommendations of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the claim disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st May, 1999______________________
CON/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.