Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87319 Case Number: AD8746 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LTD - and - FWUI;ITGWU |
Appeal by the Unions against Rights Commissioner's Recommendations CM/17135 and CM/17130.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that in both instances with which the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendations deal recourse to agreed procedures
would have provided solutions to the matters at issue. The Court
therefore considers that Recommendation No. CM/17130 and
Recommendation CM/17135 should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87319 THE LABOUR COURT AD46/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 46 OF 1987
Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Unions against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendations CM/17135 and CM/17130.
Background:
2. Over the past two years, lengthy negotiations have taken place
in the Company regarding proposals to implement a new payment
system for transport personnel. (The matter was the subject of a
Labour Court Recommendation 9650). The workers, by a narrow
majority voted for the introduction of the new arrangements for a
trial period. The trial period commenced on 16th June, 1986, and
was scheduled to continue for 12 months. Difficulties arose
regarding the operation and interpretation of various clauses in
the scheme. On 4th July, 1986, the transport drivers in Dublin
unanimously decided to come off the new scheme and revert to the
old system of work. The Company named this an unofficial
industrial action. A stalemate situation arose whereby the
workers were only prepared to work under the old system, and the
Company was only prepared to countenance the working of the new
system. The situation continued until the 17th July, 1986, when
an agreement was drawn up to allow for a resumption of work. Part
of the agreement was that the question of reimbursement for lost
wages would be referred to a Rights Commissioner. At an initial
hearing on 22nd July, 1986, the Rights Commissioner recommended
that the Company advance the sum of #175 to drivers pending the
outcome of a full investigation. A further dispute arose on 20th
and 21st August, 1986, again arising from an interpretation of a
clause in the agreement. This matter was investigated on the 9th
of September, 1986, as was the stoppage previously mentioned. The
Rights Commissioner recommended as follows in respect of the July
stoppage.
"The wages were lost due to unofficial industrial action
and the employees could have protected their earnings
by at least working under protest pending recourse to
the agreed procedures. The Company cannot therefore be
required to compensate them for a loss which was of
their own making. Arrangements must now be made
between Unions and Company for repayment of the #175
loan."
In respect of the stoppage which occurred in August, 1986, the
Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:
"The earnings were lost due to unofficial industrial
action and the employees could have protected them by
at least working under protest pending recourse to the
agreed procedures. Indeed the settlement which
eventually satisfied them could as readily have been
achieved while they remained at work. The Company
therefore cannot be required to compensate the
employees for a loss which was of their own making so
arrangements must now be made between Unions and
Management for repayment of any advances."
The Unions appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendations to
the Labour Court under section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 21st May,
1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) In both instances the Company was initially very heavy
handed in its approach and attempted to force its
interpretation of the agreement on the workers. When
this dogmatic attitude was resisted the Company was
forced to listen to the Unions arguments, and
eventually a satisfactory agreement was reached on the
matters in dispute.
(ii) It is the Unions' contention that in the case of the
July stoppage, the workers were available and willing
to do their normal work. However the Company refused
to allocate work except under conditions which were a
misrepresentation of the standing agreement.
(iii) In the second dispute, which occurred in August, the
Company eventually fully accepted the Unions'
interpretation of the clause agreed on 8th May and 17th
July. This is an admission that the workers were in
the right, and not responsible for any time lost.
(iv) While the Company is claiming that unofficial stoppages
occurred in both cases, it is the Unions' argument that
the Company's misinterpretation of the clauses in the
scheme brought about both disputes. The Unions'
request the Court to recommend that the monies
concerned were rightfully owed to the workers, and that
they should not be asked to repay the Company.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company is seriously concerned that the objectives
of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9650 of 1st April,
1985, and the subsequent clarification by the Court in
Recommendation No. 9893 of 16th August, 1985, have not
yet been realised. The new forum of Standard Hour
payment for work performed, which constitutes the basis
for a future efficient and viable transport operation,
has not yet been achieved to the satisfaction of the
drivers and the Company.
(b) The Company feels that the Labour Court should uphold
the Rights Commissioner's findings particularly in view
of the fact that the Company/Union procedures were
ignored on both occasions and that unofficial action
was taken by the drivers in the two incidents despite
the advice of the Union officials.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that in both instances with which the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendations deal recourse to agreed procedures
would have provided solutions to the matters at issue. The Court
therefore considers that Recommendation No. CM/17130 and
Recommendation CM/17135 should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
Deputy Chairman.
10th June, 1987.
P.F./J.C.