FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLARIANT MASTERBATCHES IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Refusal to apply an allowance to all Production Operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. Clariant Masterbatches Ireland Limited currently employs 34 workers. The Company while part of a multinational chemical corporation, is a stand alone unit and is judged solely on its performance and unit cost conversion.The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for the payment of an allowance that currently applies to five employees in the mixing department to now apply to all employees.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th November, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th March, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union and the Company have a collective agreement and procedures for determining pay increases. The Union maintains that there is not one single document in existence referring to the application of the allowance to the five operatives in the mixing department.
2. The Union contends that the Company have made a saving of €300 per week since September 2005 by not replacing a charge-hand and paying an allowance to the five employees in the mixing department.
3. The Unions' members in the extrusion department have given extra productivity over the years and have also had to work with reduced manning with no extra payment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the view of Management that the claim which is before the Court is a cost-increasing claim and as such represents a breach of Towards 2016, which precludes such claims under Clause 1.4.
2. The Company states that the allowance being paid to the five employees in the mixing department is in return for taking on extra responsibility and for giving extra productivity to the Company.
3. The Company offered at conciliation to cross train all employees in the area of extrusion in order to offer them the opportunity to earn the allowance, however the Union sought €50 per person per week in order for their members to undertake the training. This would represent a cost-increasing claim and as such the Company could not accede.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court while regarding the genesis of the allowance as unusual, does not see merit in the claim as formulated. It is however, open to the Union to identify savings which could lead to the possibility of an allowance being paid to the claimant group in the future.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
3rd April 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.