FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRALCO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment of "dirty money".
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Collinstown, Co. Westmeath. It employs 330 workers and is engaged in the manufacture of parts for the automotive industry. The issue in dispute relates to the payment of a "dirty money" allowance (€15.24). The allowance was paid to all workers engaged in the polishing of metal parts by hand. This process was carried out in an enclosed environment known as the polishing room. In the mid-1990's the Company moved to a semi-automated process which provided for the polishing duty to be incorporated into the natural function of the production line. The issue was discussed at a conciliation conference of the Labour Relations Commission and agreement was reached in 1998 which included the buy-out of the allowance paid to workers involved in polishing duties.The payment would be retained by any workers who continued to work in the polishing room. At the end of 2001 the polishing room was closed. The Company proceeded (as per the 1998 agreement) to cease payment of the allowance. The Union objected to the Company's action and an official stoppage occurred which was the subject of a Labour Court investigation and recommendation (LCR 17578 refers). The Company agreed to temporarily restore the allowance to all workers who previously held the allowance and were operating as polishers. The parties agreed to refer the issue to the Labour Relations Commission for an interpretation of the agreement. A conciliation conference was held in February 2004 at which the Company sought to confirm the correctness of its decision to withdraw the allowance while the Union sought its application to a further 27 workers in the employment. The conciliation conference was adjourned and a further conciliation conference was held in May, 2004 but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd June, 2004 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 17th November, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The "dirty money" was paid to approximately 45 workers who worked in a particular designated area. The allowance was paid because of the nature of the work, and not because of the location.
2. The work concerned arose from the polishing of metal. While the polishing area has been abolished the work has remained absolutely the same. Because of redundancies and other reorganisation there are now only 18 workers in receipt of this allowance. New workers (approximately 27) are not paid the allowance although they are doing exactly the same work.
3. The payment of "dirty money" is made due to the nature of the work. It was never a skill or location payment and should be paid to the 45 workers who are currently engaged in this work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The differential was, historically, agreed for employees working in the polishing department owing to the dirty and unpleasant environment in the polishing room. The payment is not for polishing work itself, which is now a general operative task and part of the line process.
2. In anticipation of the closure of the polishing room, discussions on a buy-out of the "dirty money" were held under the auspices of the LRC in 1998. Agreement was reached and the Union confirmed acceptance of the terms proposed. The reason for the differential no longer exists and should therefore be ceased in line with the agreement.
3. The payment of "dirty money" was in relation to the exceptional circumstances of the poor environmental conditions of the polishing room when it existed. The job of polishing is now semi-automated and is done as part of the normal production line. It does not fall into the category of exceptionally dirty work, attracting a premium. This position has been upheld by the Court in the past (AD 892 refers).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties in this case.
The agreement reached at conciliation in 1998 and confirmed in the IRO 's letter of 24th September of that year is clear in providing that dirty money would be bought out from all staff other than those employed in the polishing department. The understanding was subsequently confirmed by the Union.
The present position is that the polishing department had been disbanded and it follows that all staff who retain this payment are liable to have it bought out on the agreed formula. The Court recommends that this be accepted by the Union.
In light of this recommendation the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for the extension of the payment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th November, 2004______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.