Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8721 Case Number: AD8732 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH PRINTERS LTD - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CM/17380.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions, the Court is of the opinion
that the amount of compensation recommended by the Rights
Commissioner should be amended to #4,000.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8721 THE LABOUR COURT AD32/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 32 OF 1987
Parties: IRISH PRINTERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION)
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation CM/17380.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the commercial sector of the
printing industry and employs 120 people. The appellant was
employed from February, 1983 as a working overseer in the print
finishing department at a weekly rate of #262. Following
spoilages to printing contracts for export customers, Management
demoted the worker concerned in October, 1986, because it no
longer had any confidence in his ability to control the finishing
department effectively. He was demoted to the grade of machine
operative at a rate of pay equivalent to the highest craft rate in
the finishing department i.e. #190 per week. The Union claimed
that if he were to be demoted, he would have to be compensated.
There are conflicting claims regarding the issue of compensation.
The Union claim that Management gave a commitment to discuss this
issue while Management totally refutes this. Following the
failure of local level discussions the Union referred the issue to
a Rights Commissioner who, having heard the case on the 30th
December, 1986, issued the following recommendation on the 6th
January, 1987.
"In my opinion the worker concerned deserves to be
cushioned against such a significant reduction in
income and a reasonable settlement would be around half
his annual loss of earnings. Consequently, I recommend
a sum of #2,000."
This recommendation was rejected by the Union on the grounds that
the compensation awarded was insufficient given the loss of
earnings incurred by the worker and on the 13th January, it
appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour
Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Court hearing was held on the 13th February but was adjourned
due to the absence of one of Management's representatives. A
re-convened hearing was held on the 26th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) It is the Union's contention that the amount awarded by
the Rights Commissioner is grossly insufficient and
appears to have been arrived at on the grounds of
acceptability rather than on a calculation of the
actual loss incurred.
(b) The worker's wages were reduced on the 13th November
from #262 per week to #190. In effect this means a
loss of #72 per week plus #500 per annum car allowance
and #100 Christmas bonus. The reduction in wages also
reduces his overtime rate. The annual reduction is
#4,344 which is a very substantial loss.
(c) The Rights Commissioner's award is equivalent to
approximately six months' loss. Given that he could
have expected to enjoy a working life of over twenty
years from 1986, this level of compensation is totally
inadequate. The actual practice on compensation for
loss is the annual loss multiplied by a factor, which
varies depending on the circumstances.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) Defective production on a number of important export
printing contracts through failure to observe quality
control procedures necessitated costly checking and
replacement of spoilage. The Company's reputation and
prospects for on-going business was seriously
jeopardised and thus it could not allow the worker
concerned to continue in the position of working
overseer.
(ii) The worker was retained in employment as a machine
operative at the highest craft rate in the finishing
department. The Company sees no basis or justification
for compensation beyond the #500 paid in respect of tax
and insurance on the worker's car up to May, 1987.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions, the Court is of the opinion
that the amount of compensation recommended by the Rights
Commissioner should be amended to #4,000.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
16th April, 1987.
D.H./J.C.