Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Quality Controller

Packaging Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00018382-001

09/04/2018

This issue concerns the payment made to two employees in recognition for the removal of a weekly payment to carry out quality checks on a third gluing machine. The Worker has been doing this work for a number of years and has not been compensated.

In 2007 she was moved from a gluing area to the printing area. She still covered her original role such as holidays and sick leave. In November two employees in the gluing department were paid a once-off bonus of €2,500 net. This was for the removal of the weekly payment paid to staff for conducting quality checks on a third machine.

In 2010 the Worker returned to the gluing machine area. It was at this time that she discovered that she was not getting paid for carrying out this extra work. It then came to light that two colleagues had received a once -off payment to buy out the weekly payment for undertaking quality checks on the 3rd machine. She raised a grievance on this but it has never been satisfactorily resolved. She is working under protest while endeavouring to resolve the matter.

There appears to have been a local agreement to pay these two workers, but it was not a collective bargaining process. This was not a formal agreement with SIPTU. The Worker has been adversely affected financially by the once-off bonus payment while she was on ‘loan’. She was given more responsibility upon her return to this department, as she is responsible to the quality of work coming from the three gluing machines. She has never received compensation for the extra work. She is seeking the payment of the once-off lump sum given to others who sold terms and conditions away without regard for the implication for other staff.

The Company can operate up to three glue machines dependent on production needs. Up until 2008 there had been an allowance payment for undertaking quality checks on a third gluer machine. In 2008 following negotiations between the company and SIPTU it was agreed that the payment of the allowance would cease and a glue patroller would cover up to three glue machines. This was effective from 17th November onwards. Since then nobody has been paid the allowance for covering for three machines. In December 2013 or early 2014 the Worker raised a query suggesting that she was entitled to receive the compensation payment made to the two staff previously. The Company did not agree that any bonus payment was due to the Worker. There is no obligation to the Company to make that payment as it ceased in November 2008.

It is the Company’s position that the Worker was not a member of the Team assigned to the operation of the glue machines and following negotiations between the employer’s union and the company it was agreed that the allowance would cease to be paid and that operatives would cover three glue machines from November 2008 onwards. It is very clear that since 2008 the allowance which was paid, no longer existed. Recently the Worker has been assigned work in that area and she is claiming that she is entitled to that allowance or compensation. It is the Company’s view that it is now well established that there is no longer an allowance payable for operating three machines. It has always been accepted during these discussions that there was an agreement to end the allowance in 2008. Ten years ago, the Company ceased paying the allowance for covering three machines and has not paid an allowance to any person. If this claim was conceded it would have a knock- on effect on five other employees.

This claim is rejected.

I find that it was established at the hearing that the Worker was not ‘loaned’ to the Printing section, she was transferred and she agreed to it.

I find that the Company on 20th November 2008 entered into an agreement, confirmed in writing, that a once-off payment of €2,500 net would be paid for the removal of the weekly payment. I note that the union official and the Shop Steward were copied.

Therefore, I find that the union both locally and at Official level were informed.

I find that it is most implausible that the union would not seek to encompass other workers in that agreement if it applied to them.

I find that it has not applied to others.

I find that it is very clear that no other payment has been made in the last ten years.

I accept the potential knock on effect on other employees if the claim was conceded.

I find that the Company has entered into an agreement in 2008 and has consistently applied that since.

I find that the Worker has not established an entitlement to the payment.

For the above stated reasons, I recommend that this claim should fail.

Buyout compensation