Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87320 Case Number: AD8747 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIDARE LTD - and - ITGWU |
Appeal, by the Union on behalf of two workers, against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C./16/87, concerning compensation for displacement and relocation.
Recommendation:
8. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87320 THE LABOUR COURT AD4787
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 47 OF 1987
PARTIES: UNIDARE P.L.C.
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal, by the Union on behalf of two workers, against Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C./16/87, concerning
compensation for displacement and relocation.
Background:
2. In 1983, the Company announced its intention to restructure
its wire drawing operation. Protracted negotiations took place
and a final settlement was achieved in March, 1986. Arising out
of the rationalisation, a one man - two machine system was
introduced which involved a displacement of at least four men.
Two immediately took voluntary redundancy.
3. The Union on behalf of the other two men, claimed compensation
of #2,000 per person arising from what it saw to be (a) the
displacement itself, (b) the loss of earnings involved and (c) the
impact on bonus potential. The Union referred to a settlement for
the Properzi plant where lump sums of #1,300 were paid to all
employees in the section, both those remaining under the new
system and those displaced.
4. The Company argued that no payment at all was justified since
a payment agreed between the Union and the Company, of #2,000 per
person, was applicable only to those employees remaining in the
plant. The Company also maintained that the potential earnings of
the workers concerned are protected by the introduction of red
circling to them, to remain permanently with them on a personal
to holder basis, unless overtaken by a higher grade. The Company
also contended that, the Union is not empowered or entitled to
process the claim since the agreement reached in March, 1986, does
not convey any such right to the Union.
5. As no agreement could be reached between the parties, the
matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 31st March, 1987, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following findings and recommendations:-
- Findings
Having investigated the matter and given full and careful
consideration to the points made by each party I have come to
the following conclusions:-
1) I believe that the trade union is entitled now to raise
this issue. The wording of the last sentence on page 3
of the agreement of March 1986 would seem to me to convey
such a right to the trade union;
2) I believe, also, that a strict comparison cannot be made
between the entitlements of those remaining on the
machine and those who are displaced from it;
3) Any claim for loss of bonus cannot be sustained since the
company have established with me the existence of an
universal whereby equality of bonus is possible for
equality of performance;
4) The Properzi agreement of the 24/10/83 is interesting in
so far as it did concede the same payment of #1,300 to
those remaining in the plant and those who transferred to
other work within the factory. However, there are
factors within that agreement that find no replica within
the circumstances of the wire drawing rationalisation
programme;
5) I note, also, that in the agreement of the 15th July,
1982, concerning Unidare Cables, reference was made to a
new plant displacement compensation of #51 as a minimum.
- Recommendation
In the light of the above, I do not believe that the union
has brought forward such evidence as would justify the
concession of its claim for #2,000 per person. However, I
believe that a precedent does exist both with regard to the
Properzi incident and to the wires and cables agreement
suggesting that taking all factors into account a payment in
each case is justified.
I therefore recommend, that Unidare Ltd. pay a once off lump
sum of #500 per person to the workers concerned and this is
accepted by them and by their trade union in full and final
settlement of all claims consequent on the transfer from the
wire drawing activity. In all other respects the agreement
reached on the 3rd March, 1986 to remain.
(Both workers were mentioned by name in the recommendation).
On 13th April, 1987, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation to the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on
14th May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
6. (i) The Union believes that sufficient grounds exist to
justify payment of #2,000 to both men. The operators,
who remained on the one man - two machine operation,
each received this sum as part and parcel of the
restructuring. The workers displaced have at least an
entitlement to a similar payment. These workers were
displaced involuntarily, based on their service in the
section.
(ii) The Union does not believe that sufficient weight was
given to the Propertzi precedent by the Rights
Commissioner. In this case, the compensation, of
#1,300, was paid to all operatives, both those
remaining and those displaced. The Company may argue
that this compensation included buy-outs, manning and
a revised bonus operation, however, the fact remains
that it was paid to all. In view of this, the workers
are justified in seeking #2,000 compensation.
Company's arguments:
7. (a) The Company is of the opinion that no payment is
warranted since the agreement with the Union was
applicable only to the workers remaining in the plant.
The workers' earnings are protected by the
introduction of red circling to them.
(b) The Company believes that the Rights Commissioner had
a comprehensive understanding of the matter and
although it does not believe compensation is due, is
prepared to accept his recommendation.
DECISION:
8. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th June, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman