FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FLAIR INTERNATIONAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Recognition for additional work - Switchboard Operator.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Bailieborough, Co. Cavan. It manufactures shower enclosures and shower trays for the Irish and export markers. It employs one hundred and twenty eight staff.
In 2001, the Company introduced a new switchboard system. The Switchboard Operator/Receptionist took voluntary redundancy. A rota of eight clerical staff was set up to cover the duties.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of six members employed as clerical staff for a recognition payment and a bonus going forward for carrying out the switchboard/reception duties.
The Company made an offer to pay €600 lump sum and a further €600 discretional bonus going forward. The Union rejected the offer.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd July, 2003, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of October, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are under pressure to carry out their normal duties while attending to the extra duties. If a worker on the rota is absent for any reason, another worker on the rota is asked to cover the switchboard in addition to the rostered hours.
2. It is the Company's responsibility to arrange cover for absences without resorting to the existing rota.
3. The Company made a substantial saving as a result of the redundancy. It is right and proper that the savings accruing to the Company should be shared among the workers concerned on an ongoing basis together with recognition for extra work carried out to date.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As part of a programme for change to rationalise the costs within the Company, the position concerned was identified as being under utilised in terms of time demands and workload.
2. The workers concerned can access the Company's information systems on a personal computer at the reception desk. They are not required to work additional hours to cover the reception duties.
3. The claim has been dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner. The Union's claim would add to the Company's ongoing overhead costbase and reduce its ability to compete and change on an ongoing basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
In relation to the rota difficulties the Court recommends that the parties meet to discuss the problems involved.
Subject to these difficulties being overcome the Court recommends that the offer made by the Company at one stage in the discussions, of a €600 lump sum and a further €600 discretionary bonus going forward, should be remade and accepted by the employees in settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th October, 2003______________________
GB/BGChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.