Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93707
Case Number: AD9414
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
|
Subject:
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC345/93 concerning a claim by a worker for payment of grade G salary on a rotational basis.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does
not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation. Accordingly that recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93707 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1494
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation BC345/93 concerning a claim by a worker for payment
of grade G salary on a rotational basis.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker is in a grade D job and provides cover on
occasion in a clerical grade G position. The Union sought
the payment of grade G on a rotational basis of once every
four weeks for the worker providing this relief. The Company
rejected this on the grounds that it was in conflict with the
existing grading arrangements.
2. The issue was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 19th November, 1993. The Rights
Commissioner in his recommendation (BC345/93) issued on 30th
November, 1993 recommended:-
"Having investigated the matter and having given full
and careful consideration to the points made by both
parties I have come to the conclusion that the existing
arrangements within Cadburys are adequate and fair".
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
to the Labour Court on 30th December, 1993. The Court heard
the appeal on 8th February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker possesses the necessary skills and performs
the full range of duties of grade G and should be paid the
rate for that grade regularly.
2. The rules provide that a worker must be engaged for the
majority of his/her time in any week in a grade to qualify
for that grade's rate of pay and this places the worker at a
disadvantage.
3. The worker's skills are being used to the advantage of
the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Interchangeability of people between jobs to cover
absence/breaks, has always been an essential requirement in
the factory.
2. Employees who have a regular pattern of rotation get a
rotational grade payment and the worker in this case does not
have a regular pattern of rotation.
3. The agreed basis of payment for workers not on rotation
is that of majority grade guarantee.
4. Concession of this claim would have repercussive
effects.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does
not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation. Accordingly that recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st February, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C/A.L. _______________
Chairman