FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : A.S. RICHARDSON (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Retrospection & Rate of Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. A.S Richardson & Company Ltd is a subsidiary of Balcas Timber Ltd and is located in Newtowngore, Co. Leitrim. The plant manufactures timber products for the garden and fencing market and employes approximately 35 people. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of it's member employed as a Machine Operator by the Company for pay parity with other Machine Operators. He is currently paid at the General Operative rate. The Union contends that the worker is the only Machinist not in receipt of the Machine Operators rate of pay and they are seeking to have their member placed on the correct rate of pay with retrospective compensation. The Company rejects the claim stating that the worker was party to a previous claim before the Court, LCR 17669, for upgrades from General Operative to Sorter Grade rate of pay. The Court saw no merit in the claim which was accepted by both parties. The Company is of the view that this is another attempt to raise a grievance in respect of the rate of pay of the General Operatives.
- On the 16th September, 2004, the Unionreferred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th May, 2005. A Work Inspection was carried out by the Court on the 11th November, 2005, at the Company's premises in Newtowngore, Co. Leitrim.
- The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
- The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENT'S
3. 1. It has been argued by the Company that this claim was previously rejected by the Labour Court. This issue was never the subject of the previous Labour Court hearing involving the Company. The claim relates to the worker working as a machinist and the fact that he is the only full time Machine Operator not to receive the appropriate rate of pay.
2. This is not a cost increasing claim outside the terms of the National Agreement as the worker is only seeking the same rate of pay as his colleagues likewise employed.
3. The machine in question requires skill and knowledge which is not reflected in the workers rate of pay. The court is requested to find in favour of the Union's position in relation to the workers rate of pay and to award retrospective compensation from when the claim was first put to the Company in 2002.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company position is that this case is the same case the Court heard in 2003, LCR 17669. This case is therefore on behalf of five General Operatives in the Company. The worker was offered a position as a Machinist when a vacancy arose within the Company as the general Manager was aware that he wanted such a job and rate of pay but turned it down.
2. The worker's position involves feeding material into a post-rounding machine. The process involves a Volvo grabbing machine loading a chain conveyer with timber. The logs are moved onto specialist chains and rollers and transferred into cutting machines. The worker's role is to guide the logs into the machine and clear any jam's as they occur. The worker is not a Machinist.
3. The Company position is that there is no justification for this claim. It is a cost-increasing claim and is precluded during the currency of the National Agreement, Sustaining Progress. The Company has honoured it's commitments under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and Sustaining Progress. The Company is asking the Court to recognise this and recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and having examined the work of the claimant and his stated comparators, it is the view of the Court that the skill level in the claimant's job is not on a par with that of the machine operators. The Court, however, is also of the view that the skill level in the claimant's job is higher than that required to perform the role of a general operative. The Court, therefore, recommends that the matter be resolved by an increase in the claimant's rate from €8.56 per hour to €9.08 per hour with effect from 26th May, 2005, the date of the Court hearing. This increase and this rate are personal and unique to the claimant and his job. It is red circled and should attract normal wage increases. It may not be passed on to any other worker.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
28th November, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.