FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MERGON INTERNATIONAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR990/00/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. Mergon International is a technical blowmoulding Company, supplying innovative technical blowmoulding solutions to leading multinational companies. It is based in Castlepollard, Co. Westmeath and employs approximately 160 people. The worker concerned has been employed by the Company for almost 18 years and currently holds the position of chargehand.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim that the Company unfairly treated the worker by omitting him from a pay increase awarded to all other chargehands following proposals put forward by the Labour Relations Commission. The Union is seeking payment of the 5.5% increase with effect from the 8th of December, 1997. The Company's position is that the worker does not meet the required criteria to warrant payment of the allowance.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's findings and Recommendation are as follows:-
"I note that this dispute was not referred until April, 2000. It appears to me that there are grounds for the Company to examine this payment and to award it to the worker as part of such a review.
I do not consider that any compensation in addition is merited.
I recommend that the Company offers and the worker accepts the disputed payment with effect from April, 2000."
The worker was named in the Recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the Union to the Labour Court on the 2nd of October, 2000 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 12th of January, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 5.5% increase was put in place in 1997 to recognise the comparable low rates of pay which existed for chargehands at that time.
2. The Company's statement that the 5.5% increase is an allowance in respect of cover duties is rejected by the Union on the basis that an increase of 4% was awarded to operatives on the basis of the 5.5% award to chargehands.
3. The Company's action in omitting the worker from the increase is difficult to understand and has left the worker frustrated and aggrieved. The Union is seeking that the increase as recommended by the Rights Commissioner be applied to the worker with effect from the 8th of December, 1997.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The deputy foreman's allowance is made to recognise the additional responsibilities that the chargehand assumes in the absence of the production foremen (now known as production managers) as the most senior Company representative on the premises. These include responsibility for all shipments and deliveries, security and supervision of all personnel. The worker concerned did not have any such extra responsibilities.
2. The chargehand must also make independent decisions during this time. As stores chargehand, the worker who works days only, did not deputise in the absence of the production manager, and would therefore, not be eligible for the allowance.
3. The Company agreed to abide by the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in order to improve industrial relations and in a spirit of co-operation and goodwill. This decision was taken in spite of the fact that the Company genuinely believes that the worker does not meet the required criteria to warrant payment of the disputed allowance.
4. This dispute relates to changes implemented in 1997. The worker did not raise the issue until sometime in the spring of 2000, hardly the actions of someone who honestly believed he was legitimately entitled to the disputed allowance.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties and given the background to this case considers the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to be appropriate.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd January, 2001______________________
FB/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.