FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAWN DAIRIES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. 1. Compensation for loss of overtime. 2. Milk allowance and Service pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns two claims and are as follows:-
Claim 1
The Union's claim is on behalf of one of its members employed as a pasteuriser by the Company at its plant in Limerick for compensation for loss of overtime.
In 1999, the Company installed new machinery at the plant and as a result the worker concerned suffered a loss of ten hours overtime per week.
The Company offered to appoint the worker to a supervisory role on a salary equal to his earnings prior to 1999. The offer was rejected by the Union.
Claim 2
This claim is on behalf of employees at the plant for a milk allowance and service pay. Up to 1988, all full time employees received an allocation of fourteen litres of milk and a half litre of cream per week, and service pay after five years. The Company states that this practice was discontinued by agreement in 1988. However, employees already in receipt of the allowances retained them on a personal basis. The Company also agreed to extend the allowances to those employed between 1988 and 1991 to address an anomaly caused by an administrative error made in 1991. The Union contends that there was no such agreement in 1988.
The issues could not be resolved at local level.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 26th of April, 2001, and on the 8th of August, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of August, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st of October, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Compensation for loss of earnings
3. 1. There is a high turnover of supervisors at the plant, all with qualifications in dairy science. They are paid monthly as opposed to weekly. Therefore, the worker concerned feels he could not adjust to or contribute to the supervisory post offered by the Company.
2. He co-operated fully with the introduction of the new machinery even though he suffered a loss of earnings. He should now receive suitable compensation.
Milk Allowance and Service Pay
3. The Company has produced no evidence of an agreement reached in 1988 discontinuing the milk allowance and service pay. The Union believes there was no such agreement.
4. The workers at this plant should not be treated any differently to the workers in the Company's other plants who receive a milk allowance and service pay benefits.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
Compensation for loss of earnings
4. 1. It has always been acknowledged that the worker concerned suffered a loss of overtime when the new machinery was installed.
2. The Company in making its offer is satisfied that it has endeavoured to resolve the issue.
Milk Allowance and Service Pay
3. The Company is totally opposed to the concept of a milk allowance and service pay. This is the reason why the allowances were abolished in 1988.
4. The claim is cost increasing and cannot be conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties on both claims before the Court and recommends as follows:
Claim 1 - Loss of Earnings
The Court notes the Company's offer to appoint the claimant to a supervisory post carrying a salary level commensurate with his previous earnings. It is further noted that the claimant declined this offer. The Court recommends that this offer should again be made to the claimant. However, should he again decline the offer he should be paid a one-off lump sum in compensation for loss of earnings in the amount of £8,269.42 (10,500 Euro).
Claim 2 - Service Pay and Milk Allowance
The Court is satisfied that these allowances were discontinued in 1988 and did not form part of the conditions of employment of staff who commenced employment after that date. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
The Court notes the Company's agreement to extend these allowances to those employed between 1988 and 1991 so as to address an anomaly caused by an administrative error made in 1991.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th November, 2001______________________
G.B./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.