LCR15595

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/97/231 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15595 (CC97/503) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ORMONDE BRICK LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu

SUBJECT:
1. Payment of an allowance.




BACKGROUND:

2. The Company is part of the Cement Roadstone Holdings Group of Companies and employs approximately 95 people. It manufactures clay bricks at its plant in Castlecomer, Co. Kilkenny for the home and export markets.

The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that a "book" allowance presently paid to employees on two operations for recording production information should be extended to employees on four other operations. The allowance is for filling in report forms and is valued at £6.40 gross per week. Ten other employees will benefit if the claim is conceded.

The Company rejected the claim. It states that the allowances go back to 1969 when the factory started. The payments continued on an historical basis.

The Company also claims that in 1982 a works agreement was signed which is still in force. In the agreement :-

(a) it is recognised that the Company has the right to manage its business including the right to determine the methods of operation and standards of production;

(b) Clause 14 states; "It shall be a condition of employment that employees are required to complete Job Cards and/or other appropriate records".




(c) Clause 22 states; "the parties agree that to permit business development to take place it will be necessary to make improvements in our manufacturing technology on a continuing basis".

The Union claims that a precedent was set by the Company in paying the allowance to workers on two of the Company's operations. It is seeking the payment of the allowance to other employees doing like work.

As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 6th May, 1997 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 22nd July, 1997.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:


3. 1. The Union is seeking the payment of the allowance to other employees doing the same type of work.

2. The Union rejects the claim that the Company/Union agreement was an impediment to the claim being addressed.

3. The total cost to the Company of conceding the claim would amount to £64 per week.

4. The Company should treat all employees equally.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:


4. 1. The present allowance is a feature of history. It dates back to the inception of the plant in 1969.

2. The employees concerned in this claim have been filling in similar types of forms since 1984 without any additional payment.

3. The keeping of records is part of the Company's strategy in ensuring the viability of the plant and the jobs of the employees concerned.

4. The claim is a cost increasing one and is therefore barred under the various national wage agreements.





RECOMMENDATION:

The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, is of the view that the 1982 agreement, clause 14, clearly commits the Employees to completing "appropriate records".

The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
29th July, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.