FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH GLASS BOTTLES LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR 441/99/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1992, the parties reached a rationalisation agreement, which agreed rates for all jobs. The worker concerned (Worker A) has been employed by the Company for 36 years. He is currently employed as a day work operative, and his job is classified as a batch man in the raw materials section (a list of Worker A's duties was supplied to the Court). Worker A acts as first "spare" when covering for the second employee in the raw materials section (Worker B), and he receives the chargehand's rate when covering for Worker B, a difference of £25 per week. The Union's claim is that Worker A be paid the full chargehand rate for his work in the raw materials section. The Company's view is that Worker A is paid the chargehand rate only when he is performing the appropriate duties.
The Union referred the case to a Rights Commissioner, and her Recommendation is as follows:
"I recommend that the position of the worker remain as set out in the 1992 Agreement and that there be no change in his current rate of pay within the structure."
(The worker was named in the Recommendation.)
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 3rd of November, 1999, in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of February, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The only major difference in duties between Worker A and Worker B is that Worker B is directly responsible for checking on cullet supplies (cullet being glass for re-cycling).
2. It is long established practice in the Company that any first "spare" man in any grade is entitled to hold either a spare rate which is equal to the job holder's rate, or a special spare rate.
3. It is not true, as the Company claims, that the practice of payment for first spare only relates to shift work and not day operatives (the Union supplied examples of spare day workers who receive the spare rate).
4. There have been examples since the 1992 agreement where workers have claimed the spare rate and been paid it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Worker A is paid the chargehand rate when he is performing the job. He does not act as a chargehand except when he replaces Worker B, which is very rarely. Replacements for all other day grades are paid in exactly the same manner. There are no spare rates on day work.
2. The only circumstances where day workers have achieved a rate greater than the rate for their designated position are;-
(a) where they have performed a job which carries a higher rate for 48 weeks in any 52 week period and;
(b) where they hold a rate on a personal basis because they were displaced by rationalisation/re-organisation.
Worker A does not qualify for either of the above.
3. Apart from 2 special cases in 1993, there have been no changes in the situation since the 1992 agreement.
4. The claim, if successful, could set a precedent which would effectively dismantle the existing rate structure on day work.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties to this appeal.
The Court sees no basis on which it could disagree with the conclusions and Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the appeal is disallowed and the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th February, 2000.______________________
CON/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.