FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MAGNA DONNELLY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed at grade 4 in the Prism Complete Mirror (PCM) area of the Company. She is employed on a two-shift system (7-3 and 3-11). The Company is divided into two factories. The older factory is the PCM and the second factory, which is the newer of the two is the Electronic Chromic Added Features Mirrors, known as the EC AFM. Terms and conditions of employment differ in the two factories.
The claim before the Court is for compensation following the transfer of the worker from one area of the plant to another as a result of the downturn in business, where the payment of a company bonus was in operation.
The issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of December, 2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of April, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In February, 2002, the worker transferred voluntarily from PCM to the EC AFM area. She carried PCM terms and conditions and was also paid the EC AFM bonus (TAP).She remained there until August/September, 2002.
2. The worker rejoined the EC AFM team in November, 2002. TAP payments were denied to her.
3. The worker's contribution to the team performance should be recognised by payment of the TAP.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. The worker maintained the terms and conditions of the PCM area when she transferred to the EC AFM area in October/November, 2002.
2. The Company have facilitated individual employees who opted to take on the terms and conditions of the EC AFM area.
3. The worker chose to maintain the terms and conditions of the PCM area on transfer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought compensation from the Company on behalf of one worker who was not paid a Team Achievement Pay (TAP) from November 2002 when she was employed in EC/AFM area. The Company maintained that she had a choice when she transferred from the PCM area to the EC/AFM area - she could remain on the PCM terms and conditions or opt to avail of the EC/AFM terms and conditions, which included a lower basic rate plus a TAP payment.
It is not disputed that on a previous occasion, from February to October 2002, when she similarly volunteered to work in the EC/AFM area, she was on PCM terms and conditions plus the TAP payment.
The Union do not accept that she was given such a choice but was informed that her terms would be as per the PCM terms, this is confirmed by the Company's letter of 7th November, 2002.
The Court notes that the issue of pay and conditions harmonisation has been the subject of negotiations between the parties and that the Union clearly accept that it is in the interest of all parties to finalise these negotiations.
To address the claim before the Court, the Company offered to pay the difference between the two rates after the TAP payments were paid.
Taking account of the fact that the claimant had previously worked in the EC/AFM area and at that time received the PCM terms and conditions plus the TAP payment, coupled with the Company's letter of 7th November 2002, the Court recommends that the Company offer should be increased to €750 in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th May, 2004______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.