FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ANGLO IRISH BEEF PROCESSORS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Dispute concerning correct rate of pay for loading bay employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the meat industry and has a number of plants throughout the country. The dispute involves a claim for payment by 5 piece rate workers employed in the loading bay at the Rathkeale plant following a national day of protest organised by the trade union movement on 4th October, 2002. Management made it clear to the Union that they considered the action outside of normal agreed procedures and that the 5 workers would not be paid for the period involved. The earnings of piece rate workers are underpinned by a minimum daily fall back rate which applies when circumstances outside the control of the workers result in earnings below the minimum level. The Union are looking for the fall back rate to apply in this instance.
The claim could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The workers referred their claim to the Labour Court on the 3rd June, 2003 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The workers turned up for work at their normal starting time. There were no hooks available on the day and the workers could not carry out their duties as normal.
2. Despite not having hooks the workers remained in the plant for 6.50 hours and then left to attend the protest that afternoon.
3. Under the terms of the bonus agreement these hours should have attracted a payment of €55.48 but the workers were only paid €24.55.
4. The Company are in breach of the agreed bonus structure and have on more than one occasion made wrong calculations of the bonus payments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 With the exception of a very small number, all workers attended work that day, including the 5 loading bay workers who are piece rate workers.
2. 28 of the workers were paid on the same basis as the 5 workers in the loading bay, i.e. piece rate earnings acquired that day.
3. The fall back rate has never been applied to losses resulting from any form of industrial action whether official or unofficial.
4. The Company do not allow piece rate workers to move back and forward between hourly and piece rate earnings as it suits them.
RECOMMENDATION:
Although the Union raised the issue of "the Company's refusal to pay the correct rate of pay to our members in the loading bay, on the 4th October, 2002, and on several occasions since" this matter referred to the Court related only to the 4th October, the date of the national protest.
The Union argued that the bonus agreement laid down that "in the unlikely event that the incentive is less than the hour rates, fall back will apply".
The Company claimed that the claimants were working at a slow rate and contributed to their own reduced pay.
While the Union claimed that a shortage of hooks contributed to their members being unable to carry out their duties, the Court is satisfied that this arose as a result of priority been given to other sections because of employees leaving early to participate in the protest.
The Court, having considered all the information supplied, is satisfied that the fall back rate requirement that , "circumstances outside the control of the employees themselves, such as Management inefficiencies must apply" did not happen in this case. The decision to participate in the day of protest was the claimants' choice, necessitating rearrangement of priorities.
The Court, therefore, does not recommend payment of the fall back rate in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
30th March, 2004______________________
JB/MCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.