FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEYDENS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SIPTU - MPGWU BRANCH) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Responsibility payment for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case involves a worker who has been employed by the Company for 22 years. His work involves helping the Chargehand (his father) in the Confectionery Department. His father has been employed for 50 years but since 2001 he has reduced his working week from 5 days to 3 days, and his rate of pay has been reduced accordingly. The Union is seeking that the worker concerned should be paid an extra payment for the added responsibility. At present he is paid an acting-up allowance of €8.66 per day for the 2 days that his father is absent. (The allowance is known as the Supervisor's rate and was introduced in 1995). The Union wants him to be paid the Supervisor's rate for the 5 days each week.
The Company's case is that the worker is being reimbursed for the 2 days that his father is absent and that he has no case for a further payment.
The case was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th of October, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of January, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The acting-up allowance of €8.66 for the 2 days does not take account of the additional work involved. There has been no replacement for the worker's father on the 2 days, and the worker has to carry out the full functions of 2 people.
2. The claim is not cost increasing as the Company maintains. The Company is saving a considerable amount as a result of the worker's father being absent for 2 days. The increase the Union is seeking is quite small.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. New technology has simplified the duties of employees in the Confectionary Department. The level of responsibility for the worker, even on the days his father is absent, is considerably diminished.
2. The worker is in receipt of an acting-up allowance on the 2 days his father is absent.
3. The claim is cost increasing. If it were conceded, it could lead to a number of "knock-on" claims from other sections.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought a responsibility payment on behalf of one worker required to cover for the chargehand who, due to ill health, has reduced his working week from a five-day week to a three-day week. The claimant is in receipt of an acting-up allowance for the two days in the week when he works alone and takes full responsibility. The Union sought the application of the acting-up allowance for the full week.
An agreement made between the parties in 1995 introduced the issue of an acting up- allowance at the supervisor's rate of pay, while at the same time it red-circled chargehands' rate of pay.
The Union confirmed for the Court that the manning levels during the week are not an issue, however, it sought extra remuneration for taking on the full range of responsibilities carried out by the claimant in the absence of the Chargehand.
Having considered all aspects of this claim, the Court is of the view that the 1995 agreement covers this type of situation and, accordingly, does not recommend in favour of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th January, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.