Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91536 Case Number: AD91102 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LEO LABORATORIES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners recommendation B.C. 188/91 concerning the payment of an enhanced bonus.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that no change in the content of the job has
occurred since the level of bonus was negotiated which would
warrant an increase as claimed by the Union.
The Court therefore is of the opinion that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation was correct and should stand. The
Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91536 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10291
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: LEO LABORATORIES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners
recommendation B.C. 188/91 concerning the payment of an enhanced
bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns two female workers who are employed in
the laboratory as cleaners. The Company operates a bonus scheme
based on weekly payments of 30% of basic pay for direct operatives
and 25% of basic pay for indirect operatives. The two workers
concerned are categorised as indirect operatives. They were
included in this category in 1976 following an agreement reached
between the Company and the Union. Their original bonus was 10%
and it was increased to 17% in 1984. In 1987 the parties
concluded another agreement on the contracting out of all cleaning
services with the exception of the sterile production areas and
the laboratory. These areas continued to be staffed by Company
employees as follows:
Sterile Production Areas - 1 supervisor 4 sterile cleaners
Laboratory - 2 cleaners.
Surplus personnel either accepted voluntary redundancy or
redeployment within the Company. As part of the agreement the
Company increased the bonus of the supervisor and the 4 sterile
cleaners to 20%. It was subsequently increased to 25%. The
workers concerned were excluded from the Agreement, and their
bonus remains at 17%. The Union claimed that an anomalous
situation presently exists and that the bonus of the two workers
concerned should be increased from 17% to 25%. Management
rejected the claim. The issue was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and on the 11th September, 1991 the
Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"In the light of the above I must uphold the position of the
Company and I therefore recommend that the claim by the Trade
Union must fail".
On the 8th October, 1991 the Union appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 6th
November, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the agreement in 1987 on the contracting out by
cleaning services the two workers concerned took up additional
duties of sterile work with increased responsibility in the
Company's equality control department. The other four
cleaners in the production areas (penicilin and general
plants) had a grade review and were rewarded for "increased
responsibility" and "changed circumstances" by a regrading
from Grade 2 to Grade 3. Within twelve months their bonus was
increased from 20% to 25%. Since 1987 and the changed
circumstances the Union has pursued a claim for an increase in
the bonus payment on behalf of the two workers concerned.
There has been a personal change for the two employees in
terms of work content and reporting structure. The
integration of responsibility for cleaning into the quality
control department raises the status of their work and
increases their responsibilities.
2. The increase to 25% in bonus to the workers in the sterile
department has left the two workers with a strong sense of
inequitable and unfair treatment. The Company has sought to
reward one group of workers by both a grade movement and an
increased bonus while refusing to make any adjustment for the
other group despite changed circumstances for both groups.
3. The Company's reference to a previous Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is misleading. This hearing
took place in 1986 before (1) the rationalisation and
redundancies in 1987, (2) the regrading of and higher payments
to some cleaning staff, and (3) the reorganisation of
laboratory personnel into the quality control department.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As part of the 1987 agreement the Company increased the
bonus of the sterile cleaners in recognition of increased
responsibility and changed circumstances. As the position of
the two workers concerned remained unchanged they were
specifically excluded from the increase. The agreement
specifically stated "that the increase would only apply to the
cleaning supervisor and the four sterile cleaners. The normal
cleaning bonus of 17% will apply to all other cleaners". In
October, 1987, the cleaning operation was further reorganised
by transferring the sterile cleaners to the relevant
production departments. The cleaning supervisor became a
production operator and the remaining sterile cleaners were
promoted to Grade 3 sanitising operators. The position of the
laboratory cleaners remained unchanged.
2. The Company rejects the Union's claim that the bonus rate
of 17% for laboratory cleaners is anomalous. The present
bonus structure was arrived at through consultation and
negotiation with the Union at every stage, including the
agreement of April, 1987 which is still in effect. As the
circumstances of the two workers concerned have not changed
since then, no anomaly exists.
3. Two Rights Commissioners have issued recommendations in
respect of the same claim and have found that the Union's
claim cannot be justified on the grounds that the bonus is
anomalous or that the nature of the work has changed
significantly.
4. It should be noted that the terms of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress have been applied in this Company
and that Clause 5 of that agreement precludes further cost
increasing claims.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that no change in the content of the job has
occurred since the level of bonus was negotiated which would
warrant an increase as claimed by the Union.
The Court therefore is of the opinion that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation was correct and should stand. The
Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
26th November, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.