FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CASTOLIN EUTECTIC IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-059098-Ir-07/RG.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been in operation since 1964 and is involved in the manufacture and distribution of welding equipment. In 1975 it decided to stagger rest-breaks in the Powder Department to provide continuity of work and that an allowance was paid. The system of staggered rest breaks was introduced in Flux Cord Wire Department in 2001 and the Company maintains that it was only paid to employees operating certain equipment. In 2004 the Company decided to introduce a new policy whereby the staggered-break allowance would not be paid automatically to employees until:
Their employment is made permanent, or
Their training was complete, or
They are requested by their Supervisor to work staggered breaks. During the probationary period staggered-break working must be requested.
The worker joined the Company in May, 2006, in the Powder Department under the "training panel" programme on a 6-month probationary period. Following a review in September, 2006, this period was extended for another 3 months. Having successfully completed this second probationary period the worker was paid the staggered-break allowance.
In July, 2007, the worker brought a case that two fellow employees with shorter service had received the staggered-break allowance. The Union quoted a Company/Union agreement of 1987 to support his case. He eventually received the equivalent of two months' payment of the allowance (which the Company had not paid him in error following completion of his probation period) but believed that he was due another 10 months' payment. He referred his case to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:
"I recommend that the Employer pay the Claimant the sum of €75.21 x 35 weeks = €2,632.35 within six weeks of the date of this recommendation."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 6th February, 2009, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd June, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a disqualification of people on probation from the staggered-break allowance.
2. An appendix to the 1987 agreement states in regard to the Powder Department that operators must be available to work staggered tea and lunch breaks, and that the Company will pay 40 minutes at double-time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is established custom and practice in the Company to pay the staggered-break allowance to employees who have successfully completed their probationary period or employees who are required to work staggered breaks. The worker concerned was treated the same as all other new employees.
2. The Company/Union grievance procedure was not followed in relation to this issue. The Union made no attempt to resolve the dispute at local level.
DECISION:
The Court, noting the presence of a signed agreement, upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in this individual case. It should not be taken as a precedent in any other case. The Court notes that the Company is seeking to update the terms of the Company/Union agreement as it affects this issue and would strongly encourage the Union to fully engage in this process with a view to reaching an early agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
15th June, 2009.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.