Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87128 Case Number: AD8729 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ST. AUGUSTINE'S SCHOOL - and - FWUI |
Appeal, by the Union, on behalf of 12 workers against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM/17,228, concerning compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, as set out
in the submissions and as stated in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation, which is the subject of Appeal by the Union, the
Court is of the view that it would not be justified in altering
the Recommendation.
The Court, accordingly does not uphold the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
02CD87128 THE LABOUR COURT AD29/87
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 29 OF 1987
PARTIES: ST. AUGUSTINE'S SCHOOL
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Appeal, by the Union, on behalf of 12 workers against Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM/17,228, concerning
compensation for loss of earnings.
Background:
2. Between September, 1984, and September, 1986, there has been
a reduction in week-end working due to the changing nature and
demands of the work in St. Augustine's School. When initially the
incidence of week-end working was reduced, compensation was agreed
at that point in time. In September, 1985, management again
raised the question of either reducing or ceasing week-end
working. A number of local level discussions took place in early
1986, and the matter was then referred, by the Union, to the
conciliation services of the Labour Court. As no progress was
made at a conciliation conference held on 3rd March, 1986, the
Union adjourned to consider it's position. No further discussions
took place between the two sides until 14th July, 1986, at local
level. The negotiations concerning compensation did not progress
and these talks broke down.
The management submitted that revised rosters were introduced
because week-end cover was no longer required. They had done
everything possible to bring the matter to a conclusion. After
the break-down of talks in July, all staff were aware that the new
roster would come into effect on 1st September, 1986, and staff
were informed that they would not be paid for unrostered hours.
The Union asserted that the delay in bringing the issue to a
conclusion was not their fault. The old roster was an integral
part of their members' conditions and they were entitled not to
change them without being satisfied with the compensation. The
new roster was introduced although management knew the staff would
not accept them. The Union held the management responsible for
the loss of earnings because they failed to observe the normal
industrial relations process. The average loss is about #150.
The Union referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner, for
investigation, under Sections 13 and 14 of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. On 11th December, 1986, the Rights
Commissioner issued the following recommendation:
"The school had to introduce the new rosters when the time had
arrived that there was no longer a need for week-end working.
The twelve employees therefore knew that there would be
nothing for them to do were they to come in. But more
importantly they knew beforehand that they would not be paid
for attendance for any unrostered hours, so they were aware
of the consequences. They ought to have accepted the new
rosters, even under protest, and if they were not getting
satisfaction on their compensation claim within a reasonable
period of say a month or two they could have asked the Union
to consider what could be done to expedite a settlement.
For these reasons there cannot be compensation."
On 13th February, 1987 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Act. A Court hearing took place on 20th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Union believe that management had ample time
between September, 1985 and September, 1986, to have
this matter dealt with. Management's argument that the
Union is responsible for the delay is not a tenable
one. Since compensation was agreed for a previous
reduction in week-end working, the staff, reasonably
expected management to come forward with some proposals
for compensation. However, this was not done.
(b) Any discussion which took place in drawing up the new
rosters, was on the basis that compensation would be
discussed and agreed before implementation could be
agreed upon and that has always been the Union's
position. Management were aware of this. At the July
meeting, no offer of compensation was made, and
management could only vaguely indicate that they might
be in a position to talk at some future date about
compensation.
(c) By letter, on 29th July, 1986, the Union indicated
clearly to management that there was no agreement on
the new rosters in the absence of compensation and made
clear that the Union was available for further
discussions on the matter. However, management made no
attempt to discuss the matter during August or to make
any compensation proposals.
(d) When the Union notified management on the 2nd
September, 1986, of their agreement to the proposals on
compensation, it was nearly two weeks before management
gave the Union written confirmation - thereby further
exacerbating the worker's loss of earnings.
(e) The delays in concluding this matter were on
management's side who refused in the first place, to
state whether it was a further reduction or cessation
in week-end working. It was management who refused to
come up with any offer of compensation despite the
precedent of paying compensation when there was a
reduction in week-end working. It was management who
made themselves unavailable for discussions from the
middle of July, 1986, to September, 1986, leaving the
worker's no option but to work the rosters which were
the only ones agreed between management and the Union.
Management's arguments:
4. (i) The Union is seeking payment on behalf of their
members who took part in a form of industrial action
by not agreeing to co-operate with rosters which had
been accepted by all parties concerned earlier in the
year. Had the worker's awaited conciliation talks
and eventually agreement, there would have been
little disruption to their own working lives as
agreement was finally reached on 25th September,
1986.
(ii) Given the fact that no objection had been raised to
the change in rosters and all that was being argued
about was compensation, management feels that the
workers should not have taken the action that they
did, without exhausting the normal procedures which
are adopted in St. Augustine's. The workers should
have allowed the new roster to be introduced, and let
the dispute be pursued through the normal channels.
(iii) Management were justified in feeling somewhat
frustrated by their attempts to introduce new
rosters, especially by the delay which they were
experiencing from the workers' side to agree any
formula for compensation. Management at no time ever
rejected the Union's arguments about the need for
compensation. What was the difference was how much
and in what form it should be paid.
(iv) Management must have the right to manage and organise
their staff to work the hours which are appropriate
to demands of the particular business in which they
are involved. Payment to staff who deliberately went
about a campaign of non-co-operation with management,
who were operating in the best interests of St.
Augustine's, the staff and the student's, is
unacceptable.
DECISION:
5. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, as set out
in the submissions and as stated in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation, which is the subject of Appeal by the Union, the
Court is of the view that it would not be justified in altering
the Recommendation.
The Court, accordingly does not uphold the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
8th April,____1987.
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.