FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH SUGAR PLC - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment for carrying out additional duties (not craft related) in the General Store, Carlow.
BACKGROUND:
2. In late 2000, agreement was reached to reduce the manning levels from three to two in the General Store at the Company's plant in Carlow. A sum of €1,600 was paid to the two remaining employees which was divided equally. Prior to the reduction in staff, the Store was unmanned between 1.30am and 8.00am and currently it is unmanned between 9.00pm and 8.00am. The Union's claim is on behalf of craftsmen for payment in respect of additional duties taken on by them as a result of the staff reduction in the Store. The Company rejects the claim stating that when it is necessary for a craftsman to go to the Store to identify a part he is accompanied by a member of security or a supervisor. The craftsman has no responsibility for recording the removal of the part. Local talks could not resolve the issue.
The dispute was the subject of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 4th of April, 2002, and on the 25th of June, 2002. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of June, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Carlow on the 3rd of October, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The workers concerned are now required to take on duties which were previously carried out by the storeperson.
2. The reduction in store staff was not discussed with members even though management must have been aware of the impact it would have on them.
3. The workers concerned are willing to carry out the stores duty but they must be rewarded appropriately.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the past, craftsmen always entered the Stores during unmanned periods to identify parts.
2. Craftsmen are not being asked to take on any operational work carried out by the storeperson.
3. The necessity to enter the stores during unmanned hours is approximately three or four times per week. The Company sees this as a minute change in working arrangements and is covered by the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
RECOMMENDATION:
There appears to be an arrangement with at least one Union within the Company that a figure of €1,600 is paid to employees who agree a job reduction. In this case the €1,600 was divided between two people.
The Union argues that this group of craftsmen was ignored in the discussions that took place, despite the fact that they would have to do extra work as a result of the reduction in manning in the Stores.
While the Court accepts the Management argument that the change being asked for is minuscule in this case, the Court is of the view that the craftsmen should have at least been made aware of the pending changes.
The Court recommends that the Company make the sum of €1,600 available to this group of employees.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
21st October, 2002______________________
GB/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.