INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR9497/02/GF.
2. The Company ceases the manufacture of most products for the first two weeks in August, each year to allow for annual leave. During this period Craftworkers carry out maintenance on the plant and there is some work available for any production staff who wish to avail of it. The worker concerned applied for and was selected to work during the shutdown period in August, 2001. His duties were cleaning and assisting the Craftworker as a Trades helper. During the second week he was asked to bake wafers to assist the Craftsman to overhaul the oven. This work he carried out over a four day period.
The Union's claim is that the work he carried out constitutes production work and therefore, he should receive the higher grade rate and shift payment. In order to resolve the issue the Company offered to pay the higher grade rate to the worker concerned for the week in question. The offer was rejected.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 20th of January, 2003, as follows:-
"I am satisfied the Company/Union agreements have been correctly interpreted by the management. The Company's previous offer to settle the matter without prejudice is a fair one and I recommend the claimant accept it."
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 21st of February, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of April, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The worker concerned would normally work on a two shift operation as a spare man covering for an operator. He would receive the two shift rate and the operator's rate while doing so.
2. A two shift operator who is requested by the Company to work on days because two shift is not available receives the two shift rate.
3.The worker concerned was carrying out the normal role of the oven operator by producing wafers and therefore, should receive the appropriate shift and grade rates.
4. 1. The type of work carried out by the worker concerned did not require the same level of input or responsibility that is required when the plant is in production.
2. The work carried out during this period is not comparable to the work carried out by an oven operator during normal production.
3. The worker concerned is not entitled to shift pay for that particular week as he did not work two shift hours. He worked day shift hours which he was contracted to work.
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th April, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.