Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87487 Case Number: LCR11374 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CAVAN MINERAL WATER CO. - and - ITGWU |
Claim for compensation for demotion and restoration to former position.
Recommendation:
5. In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends
that the worker concerned be reinstated to driving duties with
effect from 1st September, 1987. The Court does not recommend any
compensation payment for the period he was not driving.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87487 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11374
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11374
Parties: CAVAN MINERAL WATER COMPANY
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for compensation for demotion and restoration to former
position.
Background:
2. This claim concerns a worker who was first employed by the
Company approximately nine years ago as a factory operative. In
March, 1986 the Company agreed to a request from the worker that
he be given the opportunity to learn to drive using one of the
Company's vehicles. The worker was engaged on driving duties
from March, 1986 up to January, 1987. The worker was on sick
leave for a month and when he returned the Company placed him back
in the factory. The Union claims that the worker should be
restored to his driving duties and should be compensated for his
demotion from driving. The Company rejected the claim. No
agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 12th
February, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 1st
April, 1987 but no agreement was reached and on 15th June, 1987
the parties agreed to refer the case to the Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 29th July, 1987 in Cavan.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) About the time the worker went off sick in January,
1987, the runs were rationalised leaving a requirement
of three lorries instead of four. In spite of the fact
that the worker was the senior employee and was better
qualified to drive, both a temporary person and an
unqualified person were preferred to him so, on his
return to work in February, 1987, he was demoted to the
position of factory operative with a resulting loss of
status and serious shortfall in earnings.
(ii) As there was never any question of the workers
capability, performance or attendance record, the Union
is reluctantly drawn to one conclusion - that the
Company victimised the worker because of a threat of
unofficial industrial action in December of 1986 over
the 26th Pay Round. The worker did not instigate that
threat but, in his capacity of Shop Steward, had to act
on the decision taken by his members.
(iii) The unfair actions of the Company have had serious
consequences for the worker who is a young married man
with financial commitments entered into on the basis of
the higher earnings as a driver.
(iv) Since his return to work in February, 1987, his net
loss has been in the order of #30 per week comprised of
wages, overtime and meal allowances. The rate of pay
for a driver is #144.00 while the Factory Operative's
rate is #139.00. There are more overtime opportunities
for drivers also.
(v) There is no precedent for drivers losing their
positions due to absence and, as the worker's
attendance record is very good, this could not be
considered a reason for taking him off his regular
position.
(vi) The worker never accepted a temporary driving position.
He was a permanent driver and had graduated from
factory to driving in the same manner as other workers
had done.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The worker was acting as a temporary driver between
July, 1986 and January, 1987.
(b) Rationalisation of routes meant that the company no
longer required one of its drivers and as the worker
was only acting in a temporary capacity, he was put
back into his former position in the factory.
(c) To use an emotional term such as "demotion" as the
union continuously does in regard to this matter is
completely inaccurate and is a misrepresentation of the
facts.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends
that the worker concerned be reinstated to driving duties with
effect from 1st September, 1987. The Court does not recommend any
compensation payment for the period he was not driving.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman
27th August, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.